FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCTOB ER 8, 2009
THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 9

- 1 0 8 7 3 N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 8

- 0 0 0 0 5

- C R

- F T M

- 9 9 D N F

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A
,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

A R T U R O E L I S E O M A R T I N E Z

- B A R R E R A
, a

. k

. a

. A r t u r o M a r t i n e z

- B e r r e r a , a

. k

. a

. A p p l e s ,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( O c t o b e r 8
, 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e H U L L
, M A R C U S a n d A N D E R S O N
, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :A f

t e r p l e a d i n g g u i l t y , A r t u r o E l i s e o M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n

a n d 1 5 1

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f o r c o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s s w i t h i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e a t l e a s t

1
, 0 0 0 k i l o g r a m s o f m a r i j u a n a , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
, ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v i i )

a n d 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2

.

O n a p p e a l
, M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a c h a l l e n g e s t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f h i s g u i l t y p l e a

.

T h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e c o n d u c t e d t h e p l e a c o l l o q u y a n d i s s u e d a r e p o r t ( “ R & R ” )

r e c o m m e n d i n g t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c c e p t M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a ’ s g u i l t y p l e a t o

C o u n t 1

. M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a f i l e d n o o b

j e c t i o n s , a n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c c e p t e d h i s

p l e a

. O n a p p e a l
, M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a a r g u e s t h a t t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e d i d n o t a d v i s e

h i m o f t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h i s g u i l t y p l e a , i n v i o l a t i o n o f F e d e r a l R u l e o f C r i m i n a l

P r o c e d u r e 1 1
, a n d t h u s h i s g u i l t y p l e a s h o u l d b e s e t a s i d e

. 1

W e l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e v a l i d i t y o f M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a ’ s g u i l t y p l e a

b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t f

i l e a w r i t t e n o b

j e c t i o n t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e ’ s R & R

. S e e F e d

.

R

. C r i m

. P

. 5 9 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o f

i l e a w r i t t e n o b

j e c t i o n t o t h e

m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e ’ s p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o a

Specifica lly , Martinez-B arr era arg ues that the mag istrate judg e did not explain to hi m 1 the sentenc ing dif

fer ence s in pleading g uilty to an offe nse involving a 1,000-kilog ram drug quantity as opposed to an of

fense involving a 100- kilogr am drug quantity . Martinez-B arr era was orig inally

char g ed with conspiring to possess with intent to di stribute at least 1,000 kilogr ams of mar ijuana (Count 1), c onspiring to import into the United States at lea st 100 kilogr ams of mar ijuana (Count 2), a nd possessing w ith intent to di stribute at least 100 kilog rams of marijuana

(Count 3). I n exchang e for his guilty plea to Count 1, which conta ined the 1,000- kilogr am drug quantity , the g overnme nt dismi ssed Counts 2 and 3, which conta ined the 100- kilogr am drug quantity

.

2d i s p o s i t i v e m a t t e r “ w a i v e s a p a r t y ’ s r i g h t t o r e v i e w ” )

. T h u s , M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a ’ s 2

c o n v i c t i o n i s a f

f i r m e d

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. R o d r i g u e z

- V e l a s q u e z , 1 3 2 F

. 3 d 6 9 8
,

6 9 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 8 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t w e a f f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g i f t h e

d e f e n d a n t w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o a p p e a l a n d n o m a n i f e s t i n j u s t i c e o c c u r r e d )

.

M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a a l s o a r g u e s t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e i s s u b s t a n t i v e l y u n r e a s o n a b l e

u n d e r U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U

. S

. 2 2 0
, 1 2 5 S

. C t

. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 )

. H o w e v e r ,

M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a ’ s p l e a a g r e e m e n t c o n t a i n e d a s e n t e n c e

- a p p e a l w a i v e r , w h i c h

s t a t e d t h a t M a r t i n e z B a r r e r a “ w a i v e [ d ] t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l [ h i s ] s e n t e n c e o r t o

c h a l l e n g e i t c o l l a t e r a l l y o n a n y g r o u n d ” s o l o n g a s t h e s e n t e n c e : ( 1 ) w a s n o t a b o v e

t h e c o u r t

- d e t e r m i n e d a d v i s o r y g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e ; ( 2 ) d i d n o t e x c e e d t h e s t a t u t o r y

m a x i m u m s e n t e n c e ; a n d ( 3 ) d i d n o t v i o l a t e t h e E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t

.

N o n e o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h i c h M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a r e s e r v e d h i s r i g h t

t o a p p e a l h i s s e n t e n c e h a s o c c u r r e d

. M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a ’ s 1 5 1

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f e l l

w i t h i n t h e c o u r t

- d e t e r m i n e d a d v i s o r y g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o f 1 5 1 t o 1 8 8 m o n t h s

i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d d i d n o t e x c e e d t h e s t a t u t o r y m a x i m u m o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t f

o r

h i s o f f e n s e , s e e 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A )

. O n a p p e a l
, M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a d o e s n o t

I ndeed, a ccor ding to the R& R, Martinez Bar rer a “w aived the te n day

objection per iod to 2 this Report and Recommenda tion.” Even if this issue wer e not waive d, our re view would be f or plain err or, which Ma

rtinez-Ba rre ra ha s not shown. See United States v. Clark, 274 F .3d 1325, 1326 (11th Cir. 2001) (a

pply ing pla in error

revie w prior to adoption of Rule 59( b)). The
mag istrate judg e explained to Martinez-B arr era the conse quence s of pleading g uilty by informing him of the pena lties for plea ding g uilty and the r ights that he was wa iving by pleading
g uilty

.
3a r g u e t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e v i o l a t e d t h e E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t

. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e

l a n g u a g e o f t h e s e n t e n c e

- a p p e a l w a i v e r i s b r o a d e n o u g h t o e n c o m p a s s a

r e a s o n a b l e n e s s c h a l l e n g e

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. G r i n a r d

- H e n r y , 3 9 9 F

. 3 d 1 2 9 4
,

1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t b r o a d l a n g u a g e i n a n a p p e a l w a i v e r m a y

i n c l u d e a n a p p e a l b a s e d o n B o o k e r )

. T h e r e f o r e , i f e n f

o r c e a b l e , M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a ’ s

s e n t e n c e

- a p p e a l w a i v e r p r e c l u d e s r e v i e w o f h i s r e a s o n a b l e n e s s c l a i m

.

M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a a r g u e s t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e

- a p p e a l w a i v e r i s i n v a l i d b e c a u s e

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f

a i l e d t o a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n t h e a p p e a l w a i v e r d u r i n g h i s p l e a

c o l l o q u y

. A s e n t e n c e

- a p p e a l w a i v e r m u s t b e k n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a r y a n d w i l l b e

3

e n f o r c e d i f t h e g o v e r n m e n t s h o w s e i t h e r t h a t : ( 1 ) t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y

q u e s t i o n e d t h e d e f

e n d a n t a b o u t t h e w a i v e r ; o r ( 2 ) t h e r e c o r d m a k e s c l e a r t h a t t h e

d e f e n d a n t o t h e r w i s e u n d e r s t o o d t h e f u l l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e w a i v e r

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

v

. B u s h e r t , 9 9 7 F

. 2 d
, 1 3 4 3
, 1 3 5 0

- 5 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 3 )

.

H e r e , d u r i n g t h e p l e a c o l l o q u y , t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e s p e c i f i c a l l y d i s c u s s e d

t h e s e n t e n c e

- a p p e a l w a i v e r a n d i t s e x c e p t i o n s w i t h M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a

. M a r t i n e z

B a r r e r a s t a t e d u n d e r o a t h t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d t h e s e n t e n c e

- a p p e a l w a i v e r

. W e a p p l y

a s t r o n g p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a ’ s s t a t e m e n t u n d e r o a t h t h a t h e

u n d e r s t o o d t h e s e n t e n c e

- a p p e a l w a i v e r i n h i s p l e a a g r e e m e n t w a s t r u e , a n d

We review de novo whe ther a n appea l waiver

was knowing and voluntary and thus 3 enfor cea ble. United States v. B ushert, 997 F .2d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 1993).

4M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a h a s f a i l e d t o m e e t t h e h e a v y b u r d e n t o s h o w o t h e r w i s e

. S e e

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. M e d l o c k
, 1 2 F

. 3 d 1 8 5
, 1 8 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 4 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v

.

R o g e r s , 8 4 8 F

. 2 d 1 6 6
, 1 6 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 8 )

.

B e c a u s e M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a k n o w i n g l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d i n t o h i s

s e n t e n c e

- a p p e a l w a i v e r , t h e s e n t e n c e

- a p p e a l w a i v e r i s e n f o r c e a b l e

. T h u s , w e d o

n o t a d d r e s s M a r t i n e z

- B a r r e r a ’ s r e a s o n a b l e n e s s a r g u m e n t a n d d i s m i s s h i s a p p e a l o f

h i s s e n t e n c e

.

A F F I R M E D I N P A R T ; D I S M I S S E D I N P A R T

.

5