# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 18 29

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Co rey Odo m

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 25 , 20 16 Fi le d: Marc h 3 , 20 16 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Co rey Odo m di rect ly ap pe al s aft er he p l e d g u il ty to a fed eral ba nk -fra ud

co ns pi racy ch arg e, an d th e di st ric t co ur t va rie d up ward fro m th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s 1

The Hon or ab le Greg Kay s, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.ran ge to im

po se a se nt en ce of 63 m on th s in pr is on an d 5 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. O d o m ’s co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw, an d in a br ie f fil ed un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia
, 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7)
, co un se l rai se s th e is su es of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l, th e go ve rn m en t’s fai lu re to m ov e fo r a U.S. S

. G

. § 5K1 .1 de pa rtu re at

se nt en ci ng , an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s fai lu re to no ti fy Odo m of it s in te nt to va ry up ward fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. In a pr o se su pp le m en ta l br ie f, Odo m refe rs to pr op os ed Gui de li ne s amend m en ts on whi te -co ll ar cri m e.

Odo m pl ed gu il ty pu rs ua nt to a writ te n pl ea ag reem en t th at co nt ai ne d a waiv er of th e rig ht to ap pe al hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce, su bjec t to cert ai n ex cep ti on s. Afte r

care fu l de no vo rev ie w, se e Uni te d St at es v. Sco tt , 62 7 F.3 d 70 2, 70 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w), we wil l en fo rce th e ap pe al waiv er be cau se th e rec o r d s ho ws Odo m en te red in to th e pl ea ag reem en t an d it s ap pe a l waiv er kn owi ng ly an d

vo lu nt ari ly, an d en fo rci ng th e waiv er wou ld no t cau se a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. The is su es rai se d in th is ap pe al reg ard in g a se ct io n 5K1 .1 de pa r t u r e an d th e pr op os ed Gui de li ne s am en dm en ts fal l wit hi n th e sc op e of th e ap pe al waiv er, an d acco rd in gl y ,
we de cl in e to co n s i d e r t ho se is su es

. See Uni te d St at es v. And is
, 33 3 F.3 d 88 6,
88 9- 90 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ) (d is c u s s i n g en fo rcem en t of ap pe al waiv ers ).
Fu rth er, th e is su e of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce is no t pr op erl y rai se d in th is di rect ap pe al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Loo ki ng Cl ou d, 41 9 F.3 d 78 1, 78 8- 89 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Onl y on e of th e is su es rai se d- -fai lu re to no ti fy Odo m of in te nt to va ry up ward --m ay fal l ou ts id e th e sc op e of th e ap pe al waiv er un de r th e il le ga l-s en te nc e ex cep ti on , an d th eref or e we wil l co ns id er it
, bu t th e cl ai m is fo recl os ed by cas e la w. See Iri zarr y v. Uni te d St at es , 55 3 U.S. 7 08 , 71 4- 16 (20 08 ).

Hav in g in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd p u r s u a nt to Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8)
, w e fin d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es fo r ap pe al ou ts id e th e sc op e of th e
ap pe al waiv er. The jud gm en t is affi rm ed , a nd we gr an t co un se l le av e to wit hd raw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-