FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 7, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1475 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 20 13 7- CR-DLG UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JEFF REY BOATW RIGHT, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(N ove m be r 7, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant J ef

fr ey Bo atw ri ght

appe al s hi s se nte nc e of

205 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t fo r co ns pi racy to a ffec t co m m erce by rob be ry , 18 U.S.C. §B oatwri g ht’ s to ta l se nte nc e re su lt ed fro m a sent e nc e of 12 1 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt f or his 1 robber y offe nse and a

consec utive sentenc e of 84 months’ imprisonment for his fire arm off ense. 2 1951 (a ), and p oss es sio n of af ir earm in furthe ranc e of

ac ri m e of

vio le nc e, 18 U. S. C. § 924 (c)( 1)(A ). N o reversible er ror has been shown; we aff irm 1 Bo atw ri ght ’ s se nte nc e. B ut w e va cate and r em an d f or the li m ite d purp ose of co rr ec tin g ac le ri ca l e rr or in the j udgm en t. Boatwr ight entered into a plea a greem ent with the governm ent in this case; an d he arg ue s th at

the gov er

nm en t br ea ch ed

the ple a ag re em en t be ca

use the governm ent did no t recom m end to the dis trict court that Boatw right receive a re duc tio n inhis of

fe nse le ve l f

or a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity . B ec au se Bo atw ri ght

did not r ai se thi s is sue be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e re vie whis c la im onl y f or m an if es t i nj ust ic e. S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Mahique , 150 F . 3d 1 330, 133 2 (1 1thCi r. 199 8) . W e equa te the m an if es t i nj ust ic e inquir

y w ithr ev ie wf

or pla in er ro r. S ee id. U nde r pla in e rr or r ev ie w , w e m ay

not c or re ct an e rr or unl es s Boatwr ight establi shes “ (1) er ror, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affe cts subst antial ri ght s. ” U nit ed

S tate s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (internal quotation om itted). “ If a ll three condition s are m et, [w e] m ay then ex er ci se [ our ] dis cr et ionto not ic e a fo rf ei te d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or seriouslyaff

ects the fair

ness, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial3

pr oc ee din gs. ” I d. ( int er

na l qu otatio n om itt ed ); se e al so Unit ed S tate s v. H um phr ey , 164 F . 3d 5 85, 588 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( expla ini ng tha t “ our pow er to reviewfor plain err or is lim ited and circum scribed”). T he gov er

nm en t di d no t br ea chthe ple a ag re em en t w ithBo atw ri ght . T he plea agree m ent stated that the gov ernm ent would not recom m end a sentence re duc tio n f

or a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity

if , a m ong oth er

r ea sons , Bo atw ri ght

did not m ak e ana cc ur at e an d c om ple te dis cl osur e to the pr obatio n of fi ce of the ci rc um stanc es sur

ro undi ng h is r el ev an t c ondu ct . A t se nte nc ing , Bo atw ri ght expla ine d th at

he r ec ei ve d a

ppr oxi m at el y

$1. 4 m ill iondol lars a s hi s sh ar e of the pr oc ee ds o f the r obbe ry

in thi s c as e an d th at

m ost of thi s m one y

w as spe nt o n dr ugs, c lub s, str ipp er s, be ing “ goug [e d] ” by aj ew el ry sa le sm an , pay ing r an som after he w as kidnapp ed, and being robbed by persons who knew that he w as ho ld in g alar ge am ou ntof c as h. The governm ent explained that Boatwright also gave a share of his robbery pr oc ee ds t o aS an te ri a pr ie st, w hic h B oa twri ght a dm itt ed ; but whe n a ske d f or inf orm at ionabout

howto loc at e the pr ie st, Bo atw ri ght e xpl ai ne d th at

he onl y knew the priest’ s first nam e as E duardo or Eddie and that he did no t know wher e E duard o c oul d be f

ound or his la st k nown a ddr es s. B oa twri ght did not f ull y dis cl ose a ll inf

orm at ionabout

his r el ev an t c ondu ct ; and m ind fu l tha t w e ap ply4

pla in e rr or

r ev ie wto thi s is sue , w e re j ec t B oa twri ght ’ s c ont en tio n th at the gove rn m en t br ea ch ed

the ple a ag re em en t by

f ai lin g to r ec om

m en d th at Bo atw ri ght r e c e i v e as e n t e n c e r e du c t i o nf o r a c c e p t an c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i ty. Bo atw ri ght

ne xt a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed c le ar e rr or in de ny ing him

athr ee -l ev el r ed

uc tio n inhis of

fe nse le ve l f

or a cc ep tanc e of responsib ility . He acknowledges that his plea agreem ent contained a sentence ap pe al w ai ve r pr ovi sio n th at w oul d pr ohi bit

his appe al of

thi s is sue ; but Bo atw ri ght

c ont en ds tha t he did

not kno w ing ly

and v oluntari ly

e nte r int o th e appeal wa iver because the governm ent did no t fulfill its prom ise to recom m end an ac ce ptanc e- of

-r es pons ibi lity

r ed uc tio n. W e re view de novo the kno wing and volu ntary nature of a sentence appeal waiv er. Uni te d S ta te s v . Bus he rt, 9 97 F.2d13 43 , 13 52 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). A de fe ndant’ s w ai ve r of

his r igh t t o a

ppe al m ust be kno w ing and v oluntary ; t o enforce the waiver

“ [t] he governm ent m

ust sh ow that either ( 1) the district court sp eci fic al ly que st io ne d t he de fen da ntco nc ern in g t he sen te nc e ap pe al waiv er . . ., or ( 2) it is m an if es tly c le ar f ro m the r ec or d th at

the de fe ndant o the rw ise unde rs too d th e fu ll sig nif ic an ce of the w ai ve r. ” I d. a t 13 51. He re, the district court asked Boatwright whether he understoodthat, a s part of his ple a ag re em en t, he w as giv ing up h is r igh t t o a ppe al his se nte nc e ex ce pt5

unde r the li m ite d c ir cum stanc es that w er e spe ci fi ed in the ple a ag re em en t, and the dis tr ic t c ourt r ea d th e spe ci fi ed c ir cum stanc es to Bo atw ri ght . B oa twri ght in fo rm edth e d is tri ctco ur t t ha t h e u nd ers to odth e wai ve r pr ov is io n; an d we co nc lud e that B oa twri ght kno w ing ly

and v oluntari ly

w ai ve d th e ri ght

to ap pe al his sentence. A lth oughw e af

fi rm Bo atw ri ght ’ s se nte nc e, w e not e that the j udgm en t co nta ins ac le ri ca l e rr or . T he j udgm en t i nc or re ct ly li sts the statut e as soc iate d w ith Bo at wrig ht ’s off

en se of c on sp ira cy

to affec t co m

m erce by rob be ry

as 1 8 U.S.C. § 951(a), instead of 18 U .S .C. § 1951 (a). N either party raised this issue; bu t we m ay ra ise the iss ue of

ac le ri ca l e rr or

in the j udgm en t su a sponte and v ac at e an d r em an d w ithins tr uc tio ns tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct the e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Massey , 443 F. 3d 81 4, 822 (11th Cir. 2006). T herefor e, althoug h we affir m Bo atw ri ght ’ s se nte nc e, w e va cate and r em an d f or the li m ite d purp ose of

c or re ct ing the c le ri ca l e rr or

in his j udgm en t. AFFIRMED I N PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.