F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT October 10, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble W. Harold Albritton, I I I , United States District J udg e for the Middle District * of Alaba ma, sitting by

desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 05- 1649 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 60 00 4- CR-DTKH UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,

ve rs us JEFF ERY MICHAEL JENNEY, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 10, 200 7) Before AN DE RSO N and PRYO R, Circuit Judges, and Albritton, District * Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:2

Appellant Jenney

entered into a plea agr eem ent and pled gu ilty to three co unt s of asup er ce din g in dic tm en t: co nspi ra cy to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te a co ntr oll ed

sub stanc e, 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ), 841 (b )( 1) (A )( ii) , and 8 46; co nspi ra cy

to co m m it m one y

launde ri ng, 18 U . S. C. §§1 956( a) (1 )( A )( I) and 1956 (h); and obstruction of j ustice, §§ 18 U. S. C. 1512 (b)(3). A s part of his plea ag reem en t, h e wai ve d h is rig ht to ap pe al hi s s en te nc e, wit h l im it edex cep ti on s. Su bse que ntl y , he w as se nte nc ed to a te rm of im pr iso nm en t. Jenney argues that the district court im perm issib ly

participated in plea negotiatio ns. H e also raises sever al challenges to the sentence which w as im pose d. W e dis cu ss e ac h arg um en t i n turn , and a ff irm the c onvi ct ion s and sentence. Jenney ’ s challenge to his g uiltypleas is based on Federal R ule of Crim inal Pr oc ed ur e 11( c) (1 ), w hic h pr ovi de s th at a tto rn ey s f

or the gov er

nm en t and the de fe ndant m ay

e nga ge in ple a dis cu ssi ons an d r ea chaple a ag re em en t, but that the co urt m ust not part ic ipate in tho se dis cu ssi ons. T his r ule r equir es ac onvi ct ionto be se t a sid e if

the c ourt part ic ipate s inne got ia tio ns. U nit ed S ta te s v. Ca sa lla s, 59 F. 3d 11 73, 1177-78 (11th Cir. 1995). Where, as here, the defendant fails to objec t to a Ru le 11 vi ol at io n i n t he di st ric t co ur t, t he co ur t re vi ews forpl ai n e rro r. United States v. Monroe, 353 F. 3d 13 46, 1349 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). The district court conducted a colloquyduring which Jenney 's rights wer e3

expla ine d be fo re a cc ep tin g Je nne y ’ s gu ilty ple as . Je nne y

doe s no t di sput e that hi s ini tia l pl ea s of

gui lt w er e know ing and v oluntary , but arg ue s th at

dur ing the se nte nc ing he ar ing the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pr ope rl y part ic ipate d inple a ne got ia tio ns. The r ecord re flects that at no tim e during the sentencing hearing did Jenney m ove to w ith dr awhis gui lty ple as , and tha t w he n a ske d w he the r he w an te d to affir m his previou s pleas of guilt, Jenney responded that he did . The district court acce pted Jenney ’ s confirm ation of his p leas of guilty pursuant to the plea agreem ent, and sentenced Jenn ey in accordance with that agree m ent. T here w as no p ar tic ipatio n inple a ne got ia tio ns b y the dis tr ic t c ourt; the re fo re , the re w as no plain error. Jenney has also raised sentencing iss ues on appeal. A s part of his plea agreem ent, Jenney

wa ived his righ t to appeal his sentence. N one of the three ex ce pti ons that w oul d have pe rm itt ed an a ppe al of his se nte nc e w er e im

pli cate d by the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s im

posi tio n of

his se nte nc e. Whe the r a de fe ndant h as kno w ing ly and volu ntarily

wa ived his righ t to appeal his sentence is a questio n of law that thi s c ourt r ev ie w s de nov o. U nit ed S ta te s v. Be nit ez -Z ap at a, 131 F . 3d 1 444, 144 6 (1 1thCi r. 199 7) . T he re is no d isp ute that Je nny kno w ing ly

and v oluntari ly wa ived his righ t to appeal as part of his initial plea agreem ent, which he later re affi rm edbe fo re the di st ric t co ur t, an d i n a cco rd an ce wi th whi ch he was s en te nc ed . T he re fo re , upo n de nov o r ev ie w , thi s c ourt ho lds that Je nne y w ai ve d th e gr ound s4

for appeal of his sentence which he has raised here. For the fore goin g reasons, Jenney ’ s convictio ns and sentence are AF FIRMED .