### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J anu ary 24, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1170 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D
. C. D oc ke t N os. 02- 0109 7- CV -O RL -2 8 & 01-0008 8-CR-O RL DARRELL W ILLIAMS, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Respondent -Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry 24, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , MA RC U S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg e: D ar re ll W ill ia m s, a fe de ra l pr iso ne r pr oc ee din g pr o se , ap pe al s the de nia l of his 28 U
. S. C. § 22 55 m oti on t o va ca te , se t as id e, or c or re ct his se nte nc e, in w hic h heWil liams a lso a rgues that the waive r wa s not knowing a nd voluntary

and that his sentenc e1 appea l waiver

was invalidated by Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. C t. 2531, 159 L . Ed. 2d 403 (2004). B eca

use these a

rgument s ar e o u t side the scope of the COA, we will not consider them on appea l. See Murra y v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 1998).

2 as se rt ed tha t the se nte nc e- ap pe al w ai ve r in his ple a ag re em en t di d no t pr ec lud e him from contesting his couns el’ s effe ctiveness relating to hi s sentencing. T he district court held that the waiver pre cluded W illiam s from raising an ineffec tive-assistance cl ai m r el at ing to his se nte nc e. A ft er re vie w ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s le ga l c onc lus ion s 1 de no vo an d i ts fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r, we ag ree a nd , acco rd in gl y , affi rm . Se e Mc Carthy

v. U nit ed St at es , 320 F. 3d 1230 , 1231 -3 2 (1 1th Ci r. 2003 ) (r ev ie w ing dis tr ic t c ourt’ s le ga l c onc lus ion s ina28 U
. S. C. § 2255 pr oc ee din g de nov o and i ts finding s of fac t for clear er ror). T he r el ev an t f

ac ts are th ese. A ft er

W ill ia m s w as c ha rg ed

w ithbank f

ra ud,
m one y launde ri ng, a nd p oss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu te 500 gr am s or m or e of
co ca ine hy dr oc hlo ri de , he e nte re d aw ri tte n pl ea agr ee m en t i n w hic h he a gr ee d to ple ad gui lt y to al l c ha rg es . N ota

bly , f or pur pose s of thi s a ppe al , pur suant t o th e fo llo w ing standard

ple a- ag re em en t pr ovi sio n, W ill ia m s a gr ee d: tha t this Co urt ha s j ur isd ic tio n and a uth or ity to im pose a ny se nte nc e up to the statut or

y m ax im um se t f orth f or the of fe nse a nd p ur suant t o th e se nte nc in g gu ide lin es a nd e xpr es sly w ai ve s th e ri ght

to ap pe al [ his ] sentence, directly

or collaterally , on any

ground, [except for three ty pes of se nte nc es not inv olv ed in this ap pe al ] ; prov ide d, how ev er , tha t if the governmen t ex ercises its right to appeal the sentence im posed, as3

au tho ri ze d by

18 U
. S. C. § 3742( b) , the de fe ndant is re le as ed f ro m thi s waiv er an d m ay

ap pe al th e se nt en ce as au th or iz e d b y 18 U.S.C. § 37 42 (a). (e m pha sis a dde d)
. A t the ple a co llo quy , the dis tr ic t c ourt spec if ic al ly re vie w ed

the fo re goi ng a

ppe al -w ai ve r prov is io n in the w ri tte n pl ea a gr ee m en t w ithW ill ia m s, ap pr isi ng h im

tha t he w as w ai vi ng hi s rig ht t o c ha lle nge his se nte nc e “ dir ec tly or
c o l l a t e r a l l y, ” a n dWi l l i a ms i n d i c a t e dh i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p r o v i s i o n . Wi l l i a ms al so i nf orm ed the c ourt tha t he w as e nte ri ng the ple a ag re em en t kn ow ing ly a nd
vo lu nt ari ly. O n S ep te m

be r 27, 200 1, the dis tr ic t co urt ac ce pte d W ill ia m s’ s gui lty ple a an d
s e n t e n c e d h i m t o t h r e e c o n c u rr e n t1 3 5
- mo n th t e rms o f i mp r i s o n men t , f

o l l o w e db y a 4-y ear term of s upervised relea se. W illiam s did no t appeal his convi ction or sentence. In ste ad , ove r tw o y ears la te r, on Se pte m be r 2, 200 3, W ill ia m s f

ile d th is p ro se § 22 55 pe tit iona lle gin g th at

he r ec ei ve d in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el a t se nte nc ing
. It is w el l- se ttl ed

tha t se nte nc e- ap pe al w ai ve rs a re va lid if m ad e know ing ly

a nd volu ntarily
. See United State s v. Bush ert, 997 F.2d 1343 , 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993 ). Inthe c ont ex t of

adir ec t a ppe al , w e hav e hel d that fo r a se nte nc e- ap pe al w ai ve r to b e
en fo rc ea ble , “ [t ] he gov er

nm en t m ust sho w tha t e ith er

( 1) the d i s tr i c t c ourt sp ec if ic al ly questio ned the defendant concerning the sentence ap p ea l wa iver during the [plea]Of c ours e , the re may be a

dis tin c tio n b e tw e e n a

§ 2 25 5 c la im o f i ne ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e in 2 enter ing or

neg otiating the ple a ver sus a claim of ineffe ctiveness at sentencingor a c laim challeng ing the validity o f t he plea

or agree ment. See, e.g ., United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1994) (de termining that beca use def endant’ s ineffe ctiveness c laim unde r § 2255 did not relate to the plea or plea a g ree ment but r elated only to the alleg ed mishandling of sentenc ing, the court did not ne e d to de c ide wh e the r a de fe nd ant c ou ld in fa c t wa ive a c la im o f i ne ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e ); se e a lso Whit e, 307 F.3d at 343 (“[A]n inef fec tive assistance of counsel a rgument survives a w aiver of appe al only when the c laimed assistance direc tly aff ecte d the validity

of that wa iver or the plea itself.” ); 4 co llo quy , or

( 2) it is m an if es tly c le ar f ro m the reco rd that the de fe ndant o the rw ise
un de rs to od th e fu ll si gn ifi can ce o f th e wai ve r.” Id . at 1 35 1. Whil e w e ha ve not

a ddr es se d w he ther a se nte nc e- ap pe al w ai ve r inc lud es the
w ai ve r of the r igh t t o c ha lle nge the se nte nc e co lla te ra lly in the c ont ex t of

a§ 22 55 petition asserting inef

fective assistance of counsel, every Circuit to have addressed t h e i s s u e h a s h e l d t h a t a v a l i d s e n t e n c e - ap p e a l w a i v e r , e n t e r e d i n t o v o l u n t ar ily a nd know ing ly , pur suant t o aple a ag re em en t, pr ec lud es the de fe ndant f ro m a tte m pti ng t o at ta ck , in a co lla te ra l pr oc ee din g, the se nte nc e thr ough a cl ai m of ine ff ec tiv e
as sis tanc e of

c ouns el dur ing se nte nc ing
. Se e U nit ed S ta te s v. Whit e, 307 F
. 3d 3 36, 341- 44 ( 5thCi r. 200 2) ; G ar ci a- Santo s v. U nit ed S ta te s, 273 F. 3d 5 06, 508 -0 9 (2d Cir. 2001 ); D avila v. United States, 258 F. 3d 448, 451-52 (6th C ir. 2001 ); U nited States v. Cockerham , 237 F. 3d 1179 , 118 3-87 (10th Cir. 2001), c ert. denied, 534 U. S. 1085 , 122 S
. Ct
. 821 , 151 L
. E d. 2d 7 03 (20 02) ; M as on v . U nit ed S ta te s, 211 F
. 3d 10 65 , 10 69 -7 0 (7 th Cir . 20 00 ), cert . den ie d, 5 31 U.S. 11 75 , 12 1 S
. Ct . 11 48 , 14 8 L. E d. 2d 1 010 (2 001)
. W e ar e per sua de d by the f or eg oin g c onsi ste nt l ine of auth or ity 2Coc ke rh am, 2 37 F .3 d at 11 91 (h old ingthat ine ff e c tiv e -a ssi sta

nc e -o f- c ouns e l c la im s ur

viv e s e xpre ss waiver of right t o bringcollater al attac k on sentenc e “where it challeng es the va lidity of the plea

or waiver ”). B eca

use Will iams’s claims asser t ineffe ct i v eness at sentencingand do not conc ern repr esentation relatingto the validity of the plea

or waiver, we need not, and do not, rea ch the other situation. 5 fr om our sis te r Ci rc uit s on thi s issue , pa rt ic ularl y sin ce a co ntr ar y r es ult w oul d pe rm it
a de fe ndantto ci rc um

ve nt the te rm s of

the se nte nc e- ap pe al w ai ve r sim ply by
re ca sti ng a

c ha lleng e to his se nte nc e as a c la im of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e, thu s
ren de rin g t he waiv er m ean in gl es s. H e r e , a tt h e p l e ac o l l o qu y , t h e c o u rts p e c i f i c a l l y q u e s t i o n e dWi l l i a ms concerni ng the specifics of the sentence-appeal w aiver and determ ined that he had
en te re d in to the w ri tte n pl ea a gr ee m en t, w hic h in cl ude d th e ap pe al w ai ve r, kno w ing ly
an d vo lun tari ly
. S ee Bu she rt 997 F
. 2d a t 1351. T he pla in l an gua ge of the a gr ee m en t inform ed W illiam s t h at h e wa s wa iving a collater al attack on his sentence. U nder the se c ir cu m stanc es , the se nte nc e- ap pe al w ai ve r pr ec lud es a§ 22 55 c la im s ba se d on ineffec tive assistance at sentencing. A ccord i ng l y , we aff irm the district court’ s denial of c oll at er al r el ie f on this ba sis
. AFFIRMED.