FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 11, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. D E I O N E M . SM I T H , al s o know n as D ei one M . B ur t , al s o know n as D ei one M . B ur t - Sm i t h,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3239

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D. Ct . No . 0 3 - CR- 2 0 0 3 6 - J W L) Ju stin W . H o w a rd , S h o o k , H a rd y& B a c o n , L .L .P ., K a n sa s C ity , M iss o u ri, a p p e a rin g fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. B r entI . A nder s on, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyfort he D i s t r i ctof K ans as , W i chi t a, K ans as ( E r i c F. M el gr en, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , and Ter r a D . M or ehea d, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , O ffi ce of the U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyfort he D i s tr i ctof K ans as , K ans as C i ty , K ans as , on t he br i ef) , appea r i ng forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , BA LD OCK , and TY M KOVI CH , C irc u it Judg es. T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge.-2-

Pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement , D efe ndant - A ppel l antD ei one Sm i th pl eade d gui l t yt o one countof pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e fi ve gr ams orm or e of cr ack c ocai ne, a vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) . I n herpl ea ag ree m en t, M s. S m ith w aive d h er righ t t o ap p ea l her se n tenc e. T h e D istri ct C o u rt sent enced M s. S m i t h to 151 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent aft er ( 1) r ej ect i ng her r equ est fors afe t yval ve cons i der at i on under§ 5C 1. 2( a) ( 2) of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G u idelines M an u al (“G u idelines ” o r “U . S . S . G . ”), ( 2 ) ap p ly ing u p w ard adj us t m ent s t o heroffe ns e l evel underU . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) forpos s es s i on of a fire a rm a n d u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 fo r o b stru c tio n o f ju stic e , an d (3 ) re f

u sin g to re d u c e h e r o ffe n s e le v e l u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility. M s . S mi t h t i me l ya p p e a l s h e rs e n t e n c e . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 3 7 4 2 (a ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 4 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( en banc ) ( “[T] hi s cour thas bot h s t atut or yand cons t i tut i onal s ubj ectm att er ju risd ictio n o v e r a p p e a ls w h e n a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t h a s w a iv e d h is a p p e llate r i ght s i n an enfor cea bl e pl ea a gr eement . ”) . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthe pl ea agreem ent const i tutes an en forceable w ai ver of ap pell at e ri gh t s, w e dis m i ss M s. Sm i t h’ s appea l w i t houtaddr es s i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the G uidel i nes adjustm ents . I . BA CKGROUND O n J anuary4, 2006, t he G overnm entfi l ed a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm ent-3-

char gi ng M s . Sm i t h w i t h s i x drug- r el at ed offens es . M s . Sm i th agr eed t o pl ead g u iltyto o n e c h a rg e o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c ra c k c o c a in e in e x c h a n g e fo r a d ism iss a l o f th e re m a in in g c o u n ts. T h e G o v e rn m e n t ag re e d to recom m end t hat M s. S m i t h recei ve a tw o-l evel r edu ct i on i n the app l i cable offen se l evel underU . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1 foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , cont i ngentupon her con t i nu i ng m anifest at i on of suc h acce ptance. T he p l ea agreem ent s t at es that M s. Sm i t h “know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ves anyr i ghtt o appea l orcol l at er al l yatt ack an ym att er in c o n n ec ti o n w ith this pro sec u ti o n , co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e.” It fur t herpr ovi des t hat“the defendantw ai ves the r i ghtt o appea l the s ent ence i m pos ed i n t hi s cas e exc ept , t o t he ext ent , i f any , the courtdepart s upw ar ds fr om th e a p p lic a b le s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e d e te rm in e d b yth e c o u rt .” Fol l ow i ng acc ept ance of M s . Sm i th’ s gui l typl ea, the D i s tr i ctC our tor der ed pr epar at i on of a pr es ent ence r eport( “PSR ”) . T he PSR r ecomm ended a tw o- l evel u p w a rd a dju stm e n t u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 (b )(1 ) fo r p o ss e ss io n o f fire a rm s in connec t i on w i t h t he offens e and a tw o- l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yunder§ 3E 1. 1( a) . T he PSR det erm i ned M s . Sm i th w as not el i gi bl e fors afe t yval ve cons i der at i on underU . S. S. G . § 5C 1. 2( a) ( 2)

— w hi ch r ender s t he s t atut or ym i ni m um s ent ence forcert ai n offe ns es i nappl i cabl e i f the defe ndantdi d notpos s es s a fi r earm i n connec t i on w i th the offens e— due t o her p o sses sion o f fir ea rm s. W ith a re su lt ing o ffen se lev el of 3 0 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ry c a te g o ry o f

I, t h e P S R p ro v id e d fo r a ra n g e o f im p ri s o n m e n t o f

9 7 to 1 2 1 m o n th s .-4-

I n r e s p o n s e t o t h e P S R, M s . S mi th fi l e d a “ S e n t e n c i n g M e mo r a n d u m” ar gui ng t hats he s houl d r ece i ve s afe tyval ve cons i der at i on beca us e ther e w as no pr oof thatfi r earm s found i n herhom e w er e us ed “i n connec t i on w i th” the drug o ffe n se fo r w h ich sh e w a s c o n v icte d . T h e G o v e rn m e n t ar g u e d th a t M s. S m ith pos s es s ed one f

i r earm i n connec t i on w i th the drug t r ans act i on beca us e the gun w as re co v ere d fro m a b ed roo m w h ere o fficers also rec o v ere d tho u san d s o f d o ll ars in c a s h . B u t M s . S m ith in s is te d th a t th e c a s h w a s f ro m th e re c e n t s a le o f h e r c a r. T o s u p p o rt th is c o n te n tio n , M s . S m ith s u b m itte d a n “ A ffid a v it o f B ill o f S a le ,” re p re s e n tin g th a t M s . S m ith s o ld th e c a r fo r a s p e c ific s u m to th e b u y e r. Fol l ow i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatthe

“ a ffid a v it” w a s f

ra u d u len t. C o n se q u e n tly , the c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t M s. S m ith w as not el i gibl e for t he safetyvalve adjustm ent. Ital so determ i ned that, becau se of herfr audul ents ubm i s s i on, s he w as notel i gi bl e forthe dow nw ar d adj us t m ent foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yand thata tw o- l evel upw ar d adj us t m entunder U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1 forobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce w as w arr ant ed. T hi s r es ul t ed i n an offe ns e l evel of 34, a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I , and a s ent enci ng r ange of 151 t o 1 88 m on t hs’ i m pri sonm ent. T he co urtsent enced M s. S m i th to 151 m on ths. M s . Sm i t h appea l s hers ent ence , ar gui ng thatthe pl ea a gr eementi s not enfor cea bl e. Fi r s t , s he ar gues t hats he di d notknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ve the righ t t o ap p ea l her se n tenc e a n d there fo re sh e c an ap p ea l th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes adj us t m ent s t o heroffe ns e l evel . Second, i n theM s . Sm i t h ar gues t hatt he w ai veri s unenfor cea bl e bec aus e the G overnm ent 1 fai l ed t o fi l e a “ M ot i on forE nfor cementof the Pl ea A gr eement ” as r equi r ed by Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1328. W e have m ade c l ear , how ever , t hatt he governm ent pr es erves i t s r i ghtt o enfor ce a pl ea a gr eementw hen i tfi l es a mot i on t o enfor ce th e a g re e m e n t ors e e k s e n fo rc e m e n t in its b ri e f. United S tates v. C on trerasR am os , 457 F. 3d 1144, 1145 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “The pr efe rr ed pr ocedur e for in v o c a tio n o f

a n a p p e a l w a iv e r is fo r th e g o v e rn m e n t to file a m o tio n u n d e r T e n th C ir cu itR u le 27 . 2 (A )(1), o r t o arg u e the w aive r i ssu e in its brief.”). -5- al t ernat i ve, s he i ns i s t s t hatt he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed the pl ea a gr eementby i m pos i ng an offens e l evel adj us t m entnotcont empl at ed ther ei n— the obs truct i on of j us t i ce e nhance m ent

— and s he mustther efor e have the oppor tuni tyt o w i thdr aw herpl ea. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . W ai verof the R i ghtt o A ppeal t he Sent ence A d e fe n d a n t m a yn o t ap p e a l h e r se n ten c e if sh e h a s w a iv e d h e r a p p e llate r i ght s i n an enfor cea bl e pl ea a gr eement . T hi s C our templ oy s a thr ee- pr onged 1 a n a lysis to d e te rm in e w h e th e r t o e n fo rc e a w a iv e r o f a p p e lla te ri g h ts . Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1325. W e exa m i ne “( 1) w hethert he di s put ed appe al fal l s w i thi n the s cope of the w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s ; ( 2) w hethert he defendantknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s appel l at e r i ght s ; and ( 3) w hetherenfor ci ng the w ai ver w oul d r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Id. 1. Scope o

f the Waiver T he pl ea a gr eementpr ovi des : “[T] he defendantw ai ves t he r i ghtt o appea l th e se n ten c e im p o se d in th is c a se e x c e p t to th e e x ten t, i f a n y , the c o u rt d e p a rts-6-

upw ar ds fr om t he appl i cabl e s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned bythe court . ” T his w ai ver enco m passes al l app el l at e chall eng es t o the sent ence o ther than t ho se fal l i ng w i t hi n t he expl i ci texce pt i on forchal l enges t o upw ar d departur es . T he D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d M s. S m ith w ith in th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e it cal cul at ed; i tdi d notdepartupw ar d. T hus , M s . Sm i th’ s chal l enges t o the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the offens e- l evel adj us t m ent s cl ear l yfal l w i thi n the s cope o f th e w a iv e r. M s . Sm i t h i ns i s t s , how ever , t hatherappea l fal l s out s i de the s cope of t he w ai verbeca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tr el i ed on fa ct s der i ved fr om t he s ent enci ng h e a ri n g to d e te rm in e th e a p p lic a b ility o f th e o ffe n s e -l e v e l a dju s tm e n ts . A c c o rd in g to M s. S m ith , the c o u rt sh o u ld h a v e re lied so lelyo n th e stip u late d fa c ts in th e p lea a g re e m e n t— th o se fa c ts w ith in th e “ sc o p e ” o f th e a g re e m e n t. T h e re is no bas i s i n t he l aw fort hi s ar gum ent . A s ent enci ng cour tm ayfi nd fac t s for s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal l anez , 408 F. 3d 672, 684–85 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , and the pl ea a gr eement expl i ci t l ypr ovi des t hat“[t ] he defendant. . . agr ees t hatfac t s t hatdet erm i ne the offe ns e l evel w i l l be found byt he C our tats ent enci ng bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence and agr ees t hatt he C our tm aycons i deranyr el i abl e evi dence , i ncl udi ng h e a rs a y .” 2. Know i ng and Vol untar y Wai ver T he defendantbear s t he bur den t o demonstr at e thatherw ai verw as not-7-

k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry. Uni t ed Stat es v. E dgar , 3 4 8 F . 3 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 2

– 7 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). U n d er Hahn , t hi s C our tl ooks pr i m ar i l yt o tw o fac t or s t o as s es s the vol unt ar i nes s of a de fenda nt ’ s w ai ver . W e “e xami ne w hetherthe l anguage of the p lea a g re e m e n t sta tes th a t th e d e fe n d a n t en ter e d th e p lea a g re e m e n t k n o w in g ly and vol unt ar i l y . ” Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1324. T her e i s no di s put e thatthi s condi t i on i s s at i s fi ed her e. W e al s o “l ook foran ade quat e Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11 col l oquy . ” Id. a t 1 3 2 5 . T h e D istric t C o u rt q u e stio n e d M s. S m ith ext ens i vel yatt he pl ea he ar i ng, es t abl i s hi ng t hats he w as compet entt o ent erthe p lea a n d u n d e rsto o d a ll o f th e ter m s o f

th e a g re e m e n t. T h e c o u rt sp e c ifica lly d is c u s s e d th e w a v ie r o f h e r a p p e lla te ri g h ts , s ee Fed. R . C r i m . P. 11( b) ( 1) ( N ) , and M s. S m ith affirm ati v elyac k n o w ledg ed that sh e u n d erstoo d that w aive r. Y et M s. S m ith arg u es th at he r w aive r w as n o t kn o w ing an d v o lun tary beca us e, att he end of t he pl ea he ar i ng, t he D i s tr i ctC our ti ndi cat ed thats he r et ai ned herappel l at e r i ght s . I ndeed, aft ercompl et i ng the R ul e 11 col l oquyand acc ept i ng M s . Sm i t h’ s gui l t ypl ea, t he courts t at ed: “[P] ur s uantt o R ul e 32(j ) of t he Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, t he defendanthas t he r i ghtt o appea l t he s ent ence . ” B uta di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s t at ementt hata defendanthas t he r i ghtt o appea l does notnece s s ar i l ynegat e a w ai ver - of- appea l pr ovi s i on cont ai ned i n a pl ea ag ree m en t w h en the d efen d an t enters into th at ag ree m en t pri o r t o the c o u rt ’s s ta te m e n t. See United S tates v. A t t erberry , 144 F. 3d 1299, 1301 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( expl ai ni ng t hata di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or al advi s ementof appe l l at e r i ght s fol l ow i ng a-8-

defe nd ant’ s w ri t t en w ai ver “do [es] no taffect a defen dan t ’s pri or deci s i on t o pl ead gui l t yand w ai ve appe l l at e r i ght s ” ( emphasi s added) ) . T hi s i s es peci al l ytrue w hen, aft eri nform i ng t he defendantthathe has appel l at e r i ght s , the courtdoes n o t a s k d e fe n d a n t w h e th e r h e u n d e rs ta n d s th e d e s c ri p tio n o f th o s e ri g h ts . S e e id . ( expl ai ni ng t hats ent enci ng cour t ’ s s t at ementthatthe part i es coul d appea l the se n ten c e d id n o t in v a lid a te d e fe n d a n t’s w a iv e r o f a p p e llate rig h ts b e c a u se , in p a rt, “the courtdi d notqueryt he defendantas t o w hetherhe under s t ood i t s des cr i pt i on o f h is a p p e a l r ig h ts ” ). H e r e , t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r tc o n d u c t e d a c o m p l e t e R u l e 1 1 c o l l o q u y, s peci fi cal l yexpl ai ni ng t o M s . Sm i th thats he w oul d be w ai vi ng herr i ghtt o appea l and t o col l at er al l yat t ack he rconvi ct i on and s ent ence i f s he ac cept ed the pl ea agreem ent. M s. S m i t h sai d thatshe un derst oo d these t erm s. T he p rosecut or al so ou t l i ned t he p rovi si on s of t he p l ea agreem ent i n co urt , st at i ng : “[M s. S m i th] al so w ai ves anyappea l r i ght s orcol l at er al att ack r i ght s exce ptthos e as s peci fi ed i n t he pl ea agr eement . ” M s . Sm i t h, heratt orney , and the pr os ecut ort hen s i gned the agr eement . I tw as notunt i l t he nextday , atthe veryend of the s ent enci ng h e a rin g — fo llo w in g th e R u le 1 1 c o llo q u y , h e r a c c e p tan c e o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t, and a f ul l evi dent i aryhear i ng r egar di ng appl i cat i on of the s afe tyval ve provis i on — t hat the D i stri ctC ou rtj ud ge inform ed M s. S m i th, app arent l yas a m a tte r o f

ro u tin e , th a t s h e h a d a ri g h t to a p p e a l th e s e n te n c e . T he courtdi d not a sk M s. S m ith w h e th e r sh e u n d e rsto o d th is s tate m e n t, as it h a d d o n e p re v io u slyA l s o fort hes e r eas ons , ourr ece ntopi ni on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi lken , — 2 F .3 d — , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 3 7 2 3 8 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), i s d is tin g u is h a b le . S e e id . at*5–6 (ho lding d efen d an t’ s w aive r of ap p ell ate righ ts w as n o t kn o w ing an d v o lun tary beca us e s ent enci ng cour t ’ s m i s char act er i zat i on of defendant ’ s appel l at e w ai ver d u ri n g p le a c o llo q u y , pr i ort o s i gni ng of pl ea a gr eement , cr eat ed a mat er i al am b igu ityas to o therw ise u n am b igu o u s w ri tt en w aive r i n the p lea a g ree m en t) . -9- fo r th e w a iv e r o f

h e r a p p e llate rig h ts. F o r th e se re a so n s, th e c o u rt’s s tate m e n t d id no tneg at e M s. S m i t h’s pr i or w ri t t en w ai ver of h er appell at e ri gh t s. 2 I n addi t i on, t he court ’ s s t at ementm ayeven ha ve bee n cons i s t entw i th the pl ea a gr eement . Pur s uantt o t he agr eement , M s . Sm i th r et ai ned the r i ghtt o appea l hers ent ence i f the D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d herout s i de the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange ori f the U ni t ed St at es exer ci s ed i t s r i ghtt o appea l t he s ent ence under18 U . S. C . § 3742( b) . T hus , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s comm entm ayonl yhave be en in te n d e d to in fo rm M s . S m ith o f h e r r ig h t to a p p e a l a s lim ite d b yth e w a iv e r. See Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32(j ) ( r equi r i ng s ent enci ng courtt o i nform defe ndantof “ any rig h t to a p p e a l th e se n ten c e ” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )); A t t erberry , 144 F. 3d at1301 ( not i ng t hata court ’ s gener al advi s ementof a r i ghtt o appea l m aybe cons i s t ent w ith a p le a a g re e m e n t’ s c o n d itio n a l w a iv e r o f d ir e c t a p p e a l) . A lth o u g h , in th is c a se , the D istric t C o u rt’s r o u tin e re c itatio n o f a p p e llate r i ght s does notr enderM s . Sm i t h’ s w ai veri nval i d, w e ac know l edge thats uch i ns t ruct i ons m ayhave the pot ent i al t o r enderappel l at e w ai ver s i nval i d under di ffe r entci r cumst ance s , s uch as w hen the i ns truct i ons ar e i ncons i s t entw i th the defe ndant ’ s r i ght s orw hen the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s t at ementhas t he s er i ous pot ent i al-10-

t o confus e the defendant . W e ther efor e pr ovi de the fol l ow i ng gui dance r egar di ng a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s obl i gat i on t o i nform the defendantof hi s appel l at e r i ght s aft er a c c e p tin g a p le a a g re e m e n t c o n ta in in g a w a iv e r o f a p p e lla te ri g h ts . R u le 32 (j ) pro v ides that “[ a]f ter sen tenc ing

— reg ard less o f th e d efen d an t’ s pl ea— t he courtm us tadvi s e the defendantof any r i ghtt o appea l the s ent ence . ” F e d . R . C rim . P . 3 2 (j)(1 )(B ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e c lea r im p o rt o f th is ru le is t hatadvi ce a s t o a r i ghtt o appea l a s ent ence need be gi ven onl yw hen s uch a r i ght e x is ts . See als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Tang , 214 F. 3d 365, 368–71 ( 2d C i r . 2000) (in terp re tin g p rio r v e rsio n o f R u le 3 2 ). W h e n a d e fe n d a n t w a iv e s c e rta in a p p e llate rig h ts in a p lea a g re e m e n t, th e d istric t co u rt n e e d n o t, an d sh o u ld n o t, i nform hi m t hathe r et ai ns s uch r i ght s by , forexampl e, m aki ng a bl anket stat em en t th at th e d efen d an t has a righ t t o ap p ea l. Instea d , the d istri ct co u rt s houl d i nform t he defendantt hathe has a r i ghtt o appea l the s ent ence onl yt o the ext entt hatt he defendanthas notw ai ved thatr i ghti n the pl ea a gr eement . Such a s t at ement , i n conj unct i on, of cour s e, w i th the court ’ s confi r m at i on thatthe defe ndantent er ed i nt o t he pl ea a gr eementknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l ythr ough a c o m p lete R u le 1 1 c o llo q u y , sh o u ld e n su re b o th th a t th e d e fe n d a n t u n d e rsta n d s h is ri g h ts a n d th a t th e w a iv e r i s e n fo rc e a b le . 3. Mis car r i age of

Jus t i ce T he thi r d pr ong of the enfor cementanal y s i s r equi r es the courtt o det erm i ne w h e th e r e n fo rc in g th e w a iv e r w ill r e s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . A-11-

m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce oc cur s “[1] w her e the di s tr i ctcour tr el i ed on an im p e rm iss ib le fa c to r su c h a s ra c e , [2 ] w h e re in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l in connec t i on w i t h t he negot i at i on of the w ai verr ender s the w ai veri nval i d, [3] w h e re th e se n ten c e e x c e e d s th e sta tu to rym a x im u m , o r [ 4 ] w h e re th e w a iv e r is ot herw i s e unl aw ful . ” Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1327 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. E l l i ot , 264 F. 3d 1171, 1173 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ) . M s . Sm i th ar gues onl yt hatt he w ai veri s “otherw i s e unl aw ful . ” To be “otherw i s e unl aw ful , ” an err orm us t“‘ s er i ous l yaffect [] t he fa i rnes s , i nt egr i tyorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ’ ” Id. ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 (1 9 9 3 )) . M s . Sm i t h ar gues t hatt he D i s tr i ctC our t“unj us t i fi abl y ” conc l uded thats he obs t ruct ed j us t i ce, and thatt hi s err oneous rul i ng r es ul t ed i n an upw ar d adj us t m ent t o hers ent ence and the court ’ s i m pr operr efus al t o appl ythe ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yadj us t m ent . T hes e err or s , s he cl ai m s , affectthe fa i rnes s of the p ro c e e d in g s , a s w e ll a s th e in te g ri ty an d p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f th e ju d ic ia l s y s te m . M s . Sm i t h m i s under s t ands t he mi s carr i age of j us t i ce e xcept i on t o enfor cementof a w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s . T hi s exce pt i on l ooks t o w hether“the w ai veris ot herw i s e unl aw ful , ” i d. ( emphasi s added) , nott o w hetheranotheras pectof the pr ocee di ng m ayhave i nvol ved l egal err or . M s . Sm i th’ s ar gum entthatal l eged e rro rs in th e c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o f h e r se n ten c e sh o u ld in v a lid a te h e r a p p e llate w a iv e r illus tra tes w h a t Hahn c a lled “ th e lo g ica l fa ili n g [ ] o f fo c u sin g o n th e re su lt-12-

of the pr ocee di ng, r athert han on the r i ghtr el i nqui s hed, i n anal y zi ng w hetheran appea l w ai veri s [val i d] . ” Id . at1326 n. 12 ( di s cus s i ng w hetheran appe al w ai ver w a s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar y ); s ee als o, e. g. , Un itedS ta tes v . Ho w le , 166 F. 3d 11 66 , 11 69 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ) ( “A w ai ver of the r i gh tt o ap peal . . . i ncludes a w a iv e r o f

th e rig h t to a p p e a l b lata n t er ro r.”) . T o a llo w a lleg e d e rro rs in comput i ng a defendant ’ s s ent ence t o r endera w ai verunl aw ful w oul d nul l i fythe w a iv e r b a s e d o n th e v e ry so rt o f c la im it w a s in te n d e d to w a iv e . I n s um , beca us e M s . Sm i t h know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yent er ed i nt o the pl ea ag ree m en t con tai n ing a w aive r of ap p ell ate righ ts, b ec au se th e a ll eg ed erro rs are w i t hi n t he s cope of

t he w ai ver , and bec aus e enfor cementof the w ai verw oul d not re su lt i n a m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t M s. S m ith ’s p lea a g re e m e n t, a n d th e a p p e lla te w a iv e r c o n ta in e d th e re in , is e n fo rc e a b le . B . D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s A cce pt ance of the Pl ea A gr eement M s . Sm i t h ar gues t hatt he D i s tr i ctC our t“cons truct i vel yr ej ect ed” the pl ea agr eementw hen i ti m pos ed the tw o- l evel upw ar d adj us t m entforobs truct i on of j us t i ce unde rU . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1 beca us e the pl ea a gr eementdi d notpr ovi de not i ce that sh e m ayb e su bject t o the a djustm en t. C o n seq u en tl y , sh e a rgu es, th e c o u rt w as r equi r ed t o gi ve heran opportuni tyt o w i thdr aw the pl ea be for e s ent enci ng; b ec au se th e c o u rtd id n o t, the p lea a g ree m en t i s u n en fo rce ab le. M s. S m ith ’s a r g u me n ti s i n a p p o s i t e . T h e F e d e r a l Ru l e s o f Cr i mi n a l P r o c e d u r e d r a w a di s t i nct i on betw een thos e pl ea a gr eement s thats t at e thata s peci fi c s ent ence orW e n o te th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ex p re ss lysta te o n th e re c o rd th a t it 3 w as “ ac ce p ti n g ” o r “rejec ti n g ” the p lea a g ree m en t. T h e c o u rtd id, ho w ev er, (c o n tin u e d ...) -13- s ent enci ng r ange i s appr opr i at e orthatcert ai n pr ovi s i ons of the G ui del i nes w i l l or w i l l notappl y , and thos e agr eement s thatdo not . Speci fi cal l y , a s t at ementi n a pl ea a gr eement“thata part i cul arpr ovi s i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . . . does o rd o e s n o ta p p l y ” b i n d s t h e c o u r to n c e i ta c c e p t s th e p l e a a g r e e me n t . F e d . R. C r i m . P. 11( c) ( 1) ( C ) . I n contr as t , a pl ea a gr eementthatdoes nots o s peci fydoes n o t b in d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to a n yp a rt ic u la r s e n te n c in g ra n g e o r r e c o m m e n d a tio n . Un itedS ta tes v . He ru la , 4 6 4 F . 3 d 1 1 3 2 , 1 1 3 8 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c i t i n g F e d . R. C ri m . P . 1 1 (c )( 1 )( B )) . T he pl ea a gr eementher e does nots peci fya part i cul ars ent enci ng r ange, nor d o es itsp ec ifythat ce rt ain G u idelines adjustm en ts are o r are n o t app li ca b le. In fac t , t he pl ea a gr eements peci fi cal l yr ecogni zes that“the s ent ence t o be i m pos ed w i l l be det erm i ned s ol el ybyt he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge” a nd that“[t ] he defe nd ant unde rs t and s that i f t he co urtaccep t s this plea agreem ent buti m po ses a s ent ence w i t h w hi ch the defendantdoes notagr ee, the defendantw i l l notbe p erm itted to w ith d raw this plea o f g u il ty . ” A s su ch , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s appl i cat i on of the obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce a dj us t m entdoes notoper at e as a r ej ect i on of the pl ea a gr eement , norw as t he courtr equi r ed t o gi ve M s . Sm i th an oppor tuni t yt o w i t hdr aw hergui l typl ea be caus e i tappl i ed an a dj us t m entnot sp e c ifica llyc o n tem p late d b yth e p lea a g re e m e n t. 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 o p e ra te w ith in th e ter m s o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t, qu e stio n in g M s. S m ith w ith r es pectt o i t s t erm s dur i ng t he R ul e 11 col l oquyand di s m i s s i ng, as pr ovi ded i n t he p le a a g re e m e n t, th e fiv e o th e r c o u n ts s e t fo rt h in th e s u p e rs e d in g in d ic tm e n t. T h e s e a c tio n s a m o u n t to c o n s tru c tiv e a c c e p ta n c e o f th e p le a a g re e m e n t. See United S tates v. Skidm ore , 9 9 8 F .2 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 5 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t a d istric t co u rt’s fa ilu re to e x p re ss lya c c e p t o r rejec t a p lea a g re e m e n t am o u n ted to a c c e p ta n c e o f

th e a g re e m e n t if

th e c o u rt a c c e p ts th e g u ilty p le a ).

-14- M or eover , M s . Sm i t h’ s ar gum entas s um es the pl ea a gr eementm us tpr ovi de n o t i c e o f

e v e r yp o t e n t i a l s e n t e n c i n g o u t c o me b e fo r e i tc a n b e e n fo r c e a b l e . Bu twe h a v e e x p licitlyrejec ted th e “ n o tio n th a t a d e fe n d a n t m u st k n o w w ith sp e c ificity w hatr es ul the for fei t s befor e hi s w ai veri s val i d. ” Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1326–27 ( ci t i ng Un itedS ta tes v . R u iz , 5 3 6 U .S . 6 2 2 , 6 2 9

– 3 0 (2 0 0 2 )); s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Montano , 472 F. 3d 1202, 1205 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng cas es and expr es s l ydecl i ni ng t o adopta rul e thatan appe al w ai veri s unenfor cea bl e w hen defe ndantdi d notknow att he t i m e s he ent er ed the pl ea a gr eementw hather s ent enci ng r ange w oul d be and thatthe r es ul t i ng s ent ence w as gr eat erthan a n tic ip a te d ). I I I . CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e EN F ORCE M s. S m ith ’s w a iv e r o f a p p e llate r i ght s and D I SM I SS h e r a p p e a l.