# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 17 28

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Carl os Jo e Grad y

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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - C ap e Gir ard eau

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 5, 2 01 9
Fi le d: Ju ly 26, 2 01 9 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , ARNOLD and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Pu rs ua nt to a writ te n ag reem en t co nt ai ni ng an ap pe al waiv er, Carl os Jo e Grad y pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s or m or e

of a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am i n e , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C.
§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(B) (v ii i). At se nt en ci ng , an d ov er Grad y ’s ob jecti on , th ed i s t r i c t co ur t fo un d th at Grad y ha d two pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r a co nt ro ll e d 1

su bs ta nc e of

fen se an d ap pl ie d th e care er of fen de r en ha nc em en t un de r Uni te d St at es

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s § 4B 1.1 (a) (2 01 6) , res ul ti ng in a Gui de li ne s ran ge of 18 8 to

23 5 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The co ur t se nt en ced Grad y to 18 8 m on th s, and he no w

ap pe al s h is sen te nc e o n v ari ou s g ro un ds

.

I

Grad y as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d th ree se nt en ci ng erro rs : (1 )

fin di ng th at two of hi s pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s “ co un te d se pa rat el y ” fo r th e pu rp os es

of hi s Cri m in al His to ry un de r th e Gui de li ne s, tri gg eri ng t he care er of fen de r

en ha nc em en t; (2 ) fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e reas on s fo r it s ch os en se nt en ce an d

it s reject io n of Grad y ’s req ue st fo r a do wnwar d va ria nc e; an d (3 ) fai li ng to co ns id er

an y of th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s, th ereb y im po si ng a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

se nt en ce. The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at ot he r th an Grad y ’s ch al le ng e to th e care er

of fen de r en ha nc em en t, Grad y ’s cl ai m s are ba rred by th e ap pe al waiv er in hi s pl ea

ag reem en t. W e fir st an al y ze whe th er th e ap pe al waiv er ba rs Grad y ’s se co nd an d th ird

cl ai m s an d t he n a dd res s t he m eri ts of h is ch al le ng e to hi s ca reer off en de r st at us

.

G r a d y’s p le a ag reem en t pr ov id es , “ [i]n th e ev en t th e Co ur t acce pt s th e pl ea ,

an d aft er de te rm in in g th e ap pr op ria te Tot al Offen se Leve l, s en te nc es th e de fen da nt

wit hi n or be lo w th e co rres po nd in g ran ge , th en , as a pa rt of th is ag reem en t, th e
de fen da nt he reb y waiv es al l rig ht s to ap pe al al l se nt en ci ng is su es ot he r th an Cri m in al

His to ry .” W e wil l en fo rce th e waiv er of rig ht s to ap pe al whe n th e go ve rn m en t

de m on st rat es th at th e is su es rai se d on ap pe al are “ wit hi n th e sc op e of th e waiv er,” th e pl ea ag reem en t an d waiv er were en te re d in to “ kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly,” an d

en fo rcem en t of t h e w a i v er wou ld no t “ res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce.’” 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 ). As th e go ve rn m en t

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-co nt en ds

, Grad y ’s cl ai m s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le an d th at th e

di st ric t co ur t fai le d to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n it s ch os en se nt en ce an d it s reject io n of hi s

req ue st fo r a va ria nc e are “ se nt en ci ng is su es ot he r th an Cri m in al His to ry .” The y th us

fal l wit hi n th e sc op e of Grad y ’s waiv er. The care er of fen de r is su e, on th e ot he r ha nd

, do es no t.

W e al so co nc lu de th at Grad y ’s p le a an d wai ve r were en te red in to kn owi ng ly

an d vo lu nt ari ly. At th e ch an ge of pl ea he ari ng , th e di st ric t c o u r t c o nf irmed th at

Grad y ha d read hi s pl ea ag reem en t, rev ie wed it “i n d e t a i l” wit h hi s co un se l, an d

un de rs to od it s co nt en ts

. The co ur t al so as ke d Grad y if hi s gu il ty pl ea was th e pr od uc t

of fo rce, co erci on , or th reat s, to whi ch Grad y rep li ed

, “ No.” The co ur t th en ad dr es se d

th e ap pe al waiv er, ex pl ai ni ng to Grad y th at if th e co ur t im po se d a se nt en ce wit hi n or
be lo w th e Gui d e li ne s ran ge , Grad y waiv ed hi s rig ht to ap pe al hi s se nt en ce, su bjec t

to on ly on e ex cep ti on : Grad y co ul d ap pe al “ th e de te rm in at io n a b o ut [h is ] cri m in al

hi st or y ,” th at is

, “ [h is ] cr i mi n a l r e c o r d [] an d no th in g el se .” Grad y rep li ed th at he

ag reed

. Bas ed on th is reco rd

, w e a r e s a t i sf ie d th at Grad y en te red in to hi s pl ea an d

w a i ve d hi s ap pe ll at e rig ht s kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly. See And is

, 33 3 F.3 d a t

89 0– 91 (“ One im

po r t an t way a di st ric t co ur t can he lp en su re th at a pl ea ag reem en t

an d cor res po nd in g waiv er are en te red in to kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly is to pr op erl y

qu es ti on a de fen da nt ab ou t hi s or he r de ci si on to en te r th at ag reem en t an d waiv e th e rig ht to ap pe al .”); se e al so Uni te d St at es v

. G u z man , 7 0 7 F.3 d 93 8, 94 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 13 ) (co nc lu di ng th at pl ea ag reem en t an d waiv er were know ing an d vol unt ar y whe re
di st ric t co ur t co nf

irmed th at de fen da nt ha d r e a d pl ea ag reem en t wit h co un se l an d

un de rs to od th e ap pe al waiv er). Fu rth erm or e, we co nc l u d e t h at en fo rcem en t of th e
waiv er wou ld no t res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. See And is

, 33 3 F.3d at 89 1– 92

. W e th us en fo rce Grad y ’s ap pe al waiv er as to hi s se co nd an d th ir d c l a i ms , an d we

tu rn to hi s ch al le ng e to th e Cri m in al His to ry de te rm in at io ns s u p p o r t i n g th e di st ric t

co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t.

-3

-II

A def en da nt m ay

be cla ss ifi ed as a care er o ffen de r if

, am on g ot he r th in gs , he

“ ha s at le as t two pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s of ei th er a cri m e of vi ol en ce or a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e of

fen se .” USSG § 4B 1.1 (a). The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Grad y ’s

20 07 an d 2 01 0 M is so ur i con vi ct io ns fo r di st rib ut io n of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e eac h

qu al ifi ed as a pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on fo r a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se

. Lik e he di d

be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, Grad y arg ue s o n a p p e a l th at th es e two co nv ic ti on s sh ou ld

c o u n t as jus t on e qu al ifyin g co nv ic ti on , no t two

. “ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t c o u r t ’s

i n t e r p ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s de no vo an d rev ie w it s

ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s to th e fact s fo r cl ear erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Arm st ro ng , 78 2 F .3d 10 28 , 10 36 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

Und er th e Gui de li ne s, “ [t]he te rm ‘two pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s’ m ean s (1 ) th e
d e fen da nt co m

m it te d th e in st an t of

fen se of co nv ic ti on su bs eq ue nt to su st ai ni n g a t

le as t two fel on y co nv ic ti on s of

. . . a co n t ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se

. . . , an d (2 ) th e

se nt en ces fo r at le as t two of t he afo rem en ti on ed fel on y co nv ic ti on s are co un te d

se pa rat el y un de r th e pr ov is io ns of § 4A1 .1(a ), (b ), or ( c )

. ” § 4 B 1.2 (c). Sect io n

4A1 .2(a )(2 ), in tu rn , sp eci fie s th at to ap pl y § 4A1 .1(a )– (c), “ [p ]rior se nt en ces al way s

are co un te d se pa rat el y if th e se nt en ces were im po se d fo r of

fen se s th at were se pa rat ed
by an in te rv en in g arre st .” Here, Grad y ’s 20 07 an d 20 10 co nv ic ti on s were se pa rat ed
by an in te rv en in g arre st an d th us were pr op erl y co un te d s e p a rat el y

. As se t fo rth in

th e Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t, Grad y ’s 20 07 co nv ic ti on res ul te d fr o m a
Feb ru ary 20 07 arre st

. Alm os t th ree y ears la te r, Grad y was arre st ed ag ai n, le ad in g to

hi s 20 10 co nv ic ti on

. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t corr ec tly co unt ed ea ch co nv ic ti on

as a pr ed ic at e o f

f e n se an d pr op erl y ap pl ie d th e care er of fen de r en ha nc em en t. See

Arm st ro ng , 78 2 F.3 d at 10 36 –3 7 (h ol di ng th at two co nv ic ti on s co un te d as pr ed ic at e

co nt r ol le d su bs ta nc e of fen se s be cau se th e co nv ic ti on s were se pa rat ed by an

in te rv en in g a rres t).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

Grad y ’s sen te nc e.

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

-4

-