NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 11a0188n.06 No. 09-3505 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J ESSE C ECENA, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E N OR TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

/ B e fo re : MA RTI

N, B OG GS, and

CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. Jesse Cecena appea ls hi s sentence at the lower bo un d o f h is p ro pe rl y

c a lc ulate d a dv iso ry

g uid e lin e s r ang e a ft e r p le a din g guil ty to c on sp ir a c y to dis tr ibute mari

jua na . H ow e ve r, be c a

us e Ce c e na

wa ive d h is r ig ht to appea l in his ple a a g re e me nt,
we de c lin e to c on sid e r t

he iss ue s r a ise d a

nd dis mis s th e a

pp e a l. I. Cece na pled guilty to conspirac y to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
and (b )( 1) (A ). In h is p le a

a g reem ent , Ce cena

sti pu late d th at he wo rk e d w ithSe rg io D ur a zo to deliver ove r 10,000 kilog rams but less than 30,000 kilogr ams of marijuana to the Akron, Ohio a

rea . The plea ag ree ment also contained a waiver of Cece na’s rig ht to appea l his sente nce unde r 18 U. S.C. § 3 74 2 a

nd to c ha lle ng e the se nte nc e imp os e d thro ug h p os t- c onvic tio n p ro c e e din g s. Ce c e na re se rv e d th e ri g ht t o a

pp e a l on ly

“ (a ) a ny punis hme nt i n e xce ss o f t he statut or

y maximum ;No. 09-3505

United States v. Cec ena Pag e 2 (b) a ny sentenc e to t he extent it ex cee ds the maxi mum of the sentenc ing r ang e dete rmined under the
a dv iso ry se nte nc ingg uid eli nes as c on te mpl ate d in [his ] ple a

a g re e me nt; and

(c ) i ssu e s r e latin gto cri mi n a l h is to r

y c a lc u lati o n s . ” B e f

o r e a c c e p ti n g th e p le a , th e d is tr ic t c o urt a s k e d Ce cenaif he
un de rs too d th at, w ithc e rt a in v e ry lim ite d e xce pti on s, he wa s g ivi ngup his ri g ht t o ap pe a l hi s conviction. Cece na re sponded in the af firmative. The plea ag ree ment expected that Cece na would have a base of fense level of thirty -six and the United States ag ree d to rec ommend a thre e-le vel re duction for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty . The ag ree ment also stated that “[e]x cept for Acceptanc e of Responsibili ty , the parties ag ree that no other offe nse leve l adjustments should apply .” The plea contained no a g ree ment reg arding Cece na’ s cr iminal hist ory cate g ory . At the
c h an g e o f p l e a h e ar i n g , th e p art i e s e x p e c t e d th atC e c e n a

w o u l d f a l l i n t o c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y c at e g o r y I. H o w e v e r , th e p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o rtf o un d th atC e c e n a

f e l l i n t o c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y c at e g o r y III
. The district c ourt followed the rec ommendations in the prese ntence repor t a n dgra n ted Cece na a three -leve l reduc tion for acce ptance of responsibili ty
. Wit h an adjusted of fense level of thi rt y -t hr e e and c ri min a l hi sto ry

c ate g or y of I I I , Ce c e na ’s a dv iso ry

g uid e lin e s r ang e wa s f

ourt e e n to
se ve nte e n a

nd on e -h a lf y e ars . Ce c e na argue d th at hi s c ri min a l hi sto ry sc or e ov e rs tate d h is pa st c ri min a l c on du c t, but di d
no t ob je c t to the c a lc ulatio n o r u nd e rl yingof

fe ns e s f ound in t he pr e se nte nc e repo rt . Ce c e na a lso argued that his role wa s relatively minor and he w as not the dec isionmaker in the org anization. The district court declined to depar t from the g uidelines rang e on the ba sis that Cecena ’s cr iminal hist ory
was ove rre p re s en t ed o r on the g rounds that he ha d a minor role in the c onspiracy . Howeve r, theNo. 09-3505

United States v. Cec ena Pag e 3 district court st ated that beca use C ece na had a relatively minor role, a sentenc e at the bottom end of the a dv iso ry

g uid e lin e s r ang e wa s a

pp ro pr iate . T h e d i s t

r i c t c ourt se nte nc e d Ce c e na

to f ourt e e n ye ars ’ imp ri so nme nt. Cece na argues that his se ntence is unr easona ble beca use his c riminal history

ca t eg ory
su bs tanti a lly

ov e rr e pr e se nte d h is p ri or c ri min al hi st ory and

be c a us e his ba se of

fe ns e le ve l sh ou ld h av e b e e nr e d

u c e d i nl i g h to f

h i s m i n o r

r o l e i nth e c r i m i n a l a c t i v i ty. II. We r eview de novo whether a cr iminal defenda

nt waived his or he r rig ht to appeal his or he r sentenc e in a va lid plea agree ment. Un ite d S tates v . M c Gi lv e ry , 403 F.3d 361, 362 (6th Cir. 2005). Criminal defenda

nts may waive a ny rig ht, including t h e ri g ht to appeal, in a ple a agree ment. Id. ; United States v. Calderon , 388 F.3d 197, 199 ( 6th Cir. 2004). “When a [d] efe ndant waive s his right to appea l his sentence in a valid plea a g ree ment, this Court i s bound by that ag ree ment and will not revie w the sente nce except in limi ted circ umstances.” Un ite d S tates v . S mi th , 3 44 F .3 d 4 79 , 4 83 (6 th Cir. 2003) (alter ation in orig inal) (inter nal quotation marks and c itation omit ted). Cece na does not a

rgue that his plea a g ree ment is invalid, and does not even r espond to the United States’s ar g ument that he has waived his rig ht to appeal. Additionally , the re cord indicates that Cece na ente red the plea a g ree ment knowing ly and voluntarily . Duringthe plea c olloquy the district court specific ally asked Cece na if he understood the waiver provision a nd Cece na re sponded in t he a ff ir mativ e . T he re fo re , w e fi nd that Ce c e na

va lid ly wa ive d h is r ig ht t o a

pp e a l. Although Ce cena

rese rved three gr ounds for a ppealingthe sentenc e, he doe s not appea l on
any of tho se g ro un ds . Ce c e na’ s se nte nc e wa s n ot i mpo se d in e xce ss o f t

he statut or

y maximum
.No. 09-3505

United States v. Cec ena Pag e 4 C ec en a’s se ntence was not above his advisory g uidelines rang e as c ontemplated under the plea
a g r e e m e n t
. A n d , C e c e n a

i s n o ta p p e a l i n gth e c a l c u l at i o no f h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y. At the sentenc ing he aring , Cece na did not object to t he pre sentenc e re port’s finding s or the district court’s de termination of his criminal history
. Instead, the colloquy at the sentenc ing he aring shows that counsel a

rgued the overre prese ntation issue in support of hi s argument that the district court should exercise its discretion to depa rt downwa

rd. Specific ally , counsel stated that he had no
o b je c ti o nto th e c a lc u lati o no f Ce c e n a ’ s c r im in a l h is to r y in th e p r e s e n te n c e r e p o rt. T h e r e f ore, Cece na is not appea ling the c alculation of his cr iminal hist ory . Ins t ead, Ce cena is appea ling the district court’s de cision not to depar t downwar d, which is g ener ally not review able on a ppeal, see United States v. Santillana , 5 40 F .3 d 4 28 , 4 31 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) , a nd wh ic h has been sp e c if

ic a lly
wa ive d und e r t

he te rm s o f h is p le a

a g re e me nt. Simi larly , even if

Cece na should have been place d in c riminal history cate g ory I , his sentence is stil l not above the advisory g uidelines rang e contemplated by the plea. The plea ag ree ment place d C e c e n a ato f f e n s e l e v e l th i rty- s i x , w i tha p o s s i b l e th r e e - l e v e l r e d

u c t i o nf o r a c c e p t i n gr e s p o n s i b i l i ty. Thus, even w ith the lowe st of fense level conte mplated by this ag ree ment—level thirty -three—and
a cr iminal hist ory

cate g ory of I , Cece na’s advisory g uidelines rang e would have bee n eleve n y ear s and thre e months to fourtee n y ear s. Cecena ’s sentenc e of f ourtee n y ear s falls within that ran g e. There fore , even if we wer e to c onstrue the plea ag ree ment as conta ining a n expectation that Cece na would be in criminal hi story cate g ory I , Cece na st ill did not rec eive a sentenc e above the hig h end of the a dv iso ry

g uid e lin e s r ang e c on te mpl ate d by his ple a a g re e me nt. B e c a us e Ce c e na

kn ow ing lyNo. 09-3505

United States v. Cec ena Pag e 5 and voluntarily

waived his rig ht to appeal, a nd he is not appea ling on a ny of the th re e gro u nds on wh ic h h e re se rv e d th e ri g ht t o a pp e a l, w e dis mis s th e a

pp e a l. III . We theref ore dismiss the appea l beca use Cece na appe als only

on g rounds expressly

waived in h is p le a

a g re e me nt.