The H on or ab le Le on Jord an, Un ite d S tatesD is trict Ju dge for theE aste rn D is trict of * Tenne sse e, s itti ng by

de si gnati on. 

### NOT RECOM M ENDED FOR FULL- TEXT PUBLI CATI ON

Fi l e Nam e: 10a0243n. 06 No. 07- 5301 UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F O RT H E S IXT H C IR C U IT UN ITED STAT ES OF AM ER ICA, ) ) Pl ai nt i f f
-Appel l ee, ) ) v. ) ) HENRY V. BRI CE, ) ) D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE M I DDLE DI STRI CT OF TENNESSEE

B e fo re : KE NN ED Yand CO LE Ci rcui tJudges, and J O R D AN , Di st r i ctJudge * 

### J O R D AN , D is trict J u d g e . H enryV. Br i ce appeal s h i s c onvi cti o ns and sent ence of

194 m ont hs i n pr i son forai d i n g and abett i ng a bank r obberyand
car ry i ng a f i r ear m i n r el at i on t o a c r i m e of v i ol ence. Counsel fort he defendantf i l ed an appel l at e br i ef

pur suantt o A n d e rsv. C a lifo rn ia , 386 U

. S. 738 ( 1967) su ggest i ng t ha t t h e r e w e r e n o me r i t o r i o u s g r o u n d s fo r a p p e a l , b u t n e v e rt h e l e s s r a i s i ng two poss i bl e i ss ues: w h e t h e rBr i ce had properl egal r epr esent at i on as t o hi s d r i v i ng undersu spens i on conv i ct i ons and whet herhi s c r i m i nal hi st oryca t egorywoul d be lo w e r if h is m isd e m e a n o rs w e re s c o re d p u r s u a n t t o a m e n d e d g u id e li n e s . W e

### 2

concl ude t hatB r i ce w ai v ed h i s app el l at e r i ght s i n hi s pl ea a gr eem ent , and hi s pr o se subj ectm at t erj ur i sdi ct i on argum enthas no m er i t

. Ther efor e, we A F F I RM

. Br i ce pl eaded g ui l tyt o bot h c harges. I n hi s pl ea agr eem ent , Br i ce st i pul at ed t hathe w ai v ed h i s r i ghtt o ap pea l , exc e p t i n l i m i t ed ci r cum st ance s, i f hi s sent ence fel l wi t h i n the gui del i nes r ange an t i ci pat ed byt he part i es. The part i es ant i ci pat ed t hatt he gui del i ne range w oul d be 194 t o 22 1 m ont hs i n pri son b ased on a ba se o ffe n s e l e v e l o f 2 6 a n d a crim i n a l h i s tory c a teg o ry V , a n d i n c l u d i n g a co n s e c u ti ve ma n d a t o rymi n i mu m s e n t e n c e o f 8 4 mo n t h s fo rt h e f i r e a r m. Br i ce’ s a ppel l at e wai v eri s v al i d and bars c onsi der at i on of the cl ai m s rai sed i n t he A n d e rsb rie f. A w a ive r p ro v is io n in a p le a a g re e m e n t is b in d in g s o lo n g a s it is m a d e k n o w in g ly a n d vo lu n ta ril y. See, e. g. , U nited States v. Ashe , 47 F. 3d 770, 775- 76 ( 6t h C i r . 1995)

. A v al i d wai v er pr ecl udes a defendantf r om br i ngi ng anyty pe o f c la im n o t e xc lu d e d b y th e a g re e m e n t. See D avi la v. U nited States , 258 F. 3d 448, 4 5 1 (6th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g w a i ve r of a co l l a tera l a p p e a l ). B ric e ’s p le a a g re e m e n t p ro vid e s i n re le va n t p a rt: D e fe n d a n t f u rt h e r u n d e rs t a n d s h e i s wa i v i n g a l l a p p e l l a t e r i g ht s t hat m ig h t h a v e b e e n a v a ila b le if h e e x e rc is e d h is rig h t t o g o to tria l. It is fu rth e r a g re e d th a t (i ) d e fe n d a n t w il l n o t f il e a d ire c t a p p e a l, n o r li ti g a te underT i t l e 28 U ni t ed St at es C ode, Sect i on 2255 and/ orSect i on 2241 , a n y s e n te n c e w it h in o r b e lo w th e A n ti c ip a te d G u id e lin e s R a n g e . . . . S uch w ai v erdoe s notapp l y , how ever , t o a cl ai m of i nvo l u n tar i ness, p ro s e c u to ria l m is c o n d u c t, o r in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. Att he pl ea hear i ng, Br i ce st at ed t hat he was pl eadi ng gui l tyv ol unt ar i l yand t hathe und er st ood t hathe w as w ai v i ng h i s righ t t o ap pea l hi s convi ct i on a nd a sent ence

### 3

w ith in th e a n tic ip a te d g u id e lin e s ra n g e . A d e fe n d a n t w h o e x p re s s ly r e p re s e n ts in
o p e n c o u rt t h a th is g u ilty p le a is vo lu n ta ry o rd in a rilym a yn o t re p u d ia te h is
s ta te m e n ts th e re a fte r. S e e U n itedS tate sv. To d a ro , 9 8 2 F .2d 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 3 0 (6th C i r. 1993) ( r el y i ng on Fontaine v. U nited States , 411 U

. S. 213, 215 ( 1973) )

. Becaus e t he appel l at e wai v erwas v al i d and Br i ce’ s s ent ence was wi t hi n t he ant i ci pat ed g u i del i nes r ange, t hi s c ourtneed notco nsi dert he c l ai m s rai sed byco unsel i n t he A n d e rsb rie f. T he a ppe l l at e w ai v er , h o w e ve r, d oes n otbar B r i ce’ s pr o se argum ent
c h a l l e n g i n g t h e d i s tr i c t c o u rt ’ s su bj e c t m a tt e r j u ri s d i c ti o n o ve r his b a n krob b e ry conv i ct i on. “ [ S] ubj ectm at t erj ur i sdi ct i on m aybe r ai sed atanyt i m e, ” and i s n onw a iva b le

. L o tt v. C o yle , 2 6 1 F .3 d 5 9 4 , 6 0 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); see also U nited States v. Titter ington , 3 7 4 F .3d 4 5 3 , 4 5 9 (6th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). Al t hough Br i ce’ s a rgum enthas notbeen wai v ed, i ti s n onet hel ess wi t hout
m e ri t

. B ri ce argues t hatt he FD I C does noti nsure bank s a gai nstrobber i es, an a rg u m e n t w h i c h e s s e n ti a l l y ch a l l e n g e s t h e co n s ti tuti o n a l i ty o f the b a n krob b e ry st at ut e, 18 U. S. C

. § 21 13. Thi s c ourthas co ncl uded t hat t he st at ut e i s c onst i t ut i onal b e c a u s e F D IC -i n s u re d b a n k s a re f u n d a m e n tal t o i nt erst at e com m er ce an d C ong ress h a s a u th o rity u n d e r th e C o m m e rc e C la u s e to p ro te c t t h e m f r o m ro b b e ry. U nited S ta tes v. R obinson , 3 8 9 F

. 3 d 5 8 2 , 5 9 3 - 9 4 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 )

. “ R o b b e r i e s o f F DI Ci nsured bank s t hus hav e an i nt erst at e econo m i c e f fectt hati s q ui t e i ndependen tof t he c ov er age t hatFD I C i n su ran ce e xt ends t o i nsured bank s. I ti s t her efor e of no

### 4

c o n s e q u e n c e t h a t F D IC d o e s n o t c o ve r l o s s e s d u e t o rob b e ry. ” U nited S tates v. Wa tts , 2 5 6 F .3d 6 3 0 , 6 3 3 -3 4 (7th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( foo tno te o m i tt e d ). A ccor di ngl y , t he d i st r i ctcourt ’ s j udg m enti s A FFI RM ED , and t he m ot i on of at t or neyT

. C l i ft on Harv i el t o wi t hdr aw as couns el fort he defendanti s g r ant ed.