## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 06

- 2547 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. P ARR I S H D. C OLE , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on.

No . 05 C R 65

—Jam es T. Moo dy, Judg e.
A RGUED J UNE 3, 2008

— D ECI DE D J UNE 30, 2009

Befo re K ANN E , S YKES, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Ci r c u i tJudg e . Parr i sh Col e e nter ed i nto a w ri tte n ple a a gr eem ent with the gov er nm ent in w hi ch he acknow ledged di str ibuti ng l ess than 400 gr am s o f he r o i n a nd l es s th ana k i l ogram of m ar ij ua na . The di s t r i c tc o ur ta c c e pt e d the p l e a a gr eem en tb utf o un d, base d on i nfo rm ati on in the pr ese ntence re port, that C ole s h oul d be hel d res ponsibl e fora gr eat erquanti ty of drugs than the am ou nts he had adm i tte d i n the agr eemen t
. The co ur ti nc r e a s e d Co l e ’ s gu i de l i ne s r a ng e a c c o r d-2 N o. 06

- 2547 i ngl y a nd se ntenced Col e t o 97 m onths i n pri son, wh i ch w as ne ar l y do ubl e th e se nt en ce Co l e ex pec te d i fthe cour t had f ol l owed the re com m endati ons in the ple a ag re em en t. C ole ch alle n ge s h is s en te n c e; alt h ou gh in h is ple a a gr eem ent he waive d his r i ght t o appeal, he arg ues th atthe appe alwai ve r i s une nf o r ce ab l e be ca us e th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s in d ep en d en t c alc u lat ion of t h e d ru g q u an titi es effecti vel y nul l i fi ed the agr eem ent. W e di sag re e. The enf or ceabi l i ty ofCol e’ s a pp ealwaive r hi nges on wh etherthe drug quanti ti es in Col e’ s pl ea ag r ee m en t wer e bindi ngo n the di st r i ct cour t f o r s en tenci ng purpose s. Rule 11 ( c) ( 1) ( C) o fthe Fed eral R ules o f C rim ina l P roc edu re p rovide s th at if th e d istric t cou rt ac ce pts a p l ea c o nt aini nga n a g r ee m en t be twe enthe gov er nm ent a nd the d efendant ab out a s peci fi c se ntence, sente nci ng ra nge, or the appli cabi l i ty of a specific guideline s p rovisi on, policy st atem en t, or sente nc ing factor, th e cou rt i s bou nd by the pa rties’ agreem en t for p urp os es of se n te n c in g. C ole ’s d ru g-q u an tit y ad m iss ion s in the plea ag re em ent do not f al l i nto any o fthes e c ate gor i es but ar e instea d fa ctualst i pu l ati ons that f all o ut si de Rul e 11 ( c) ( 1) ( C) ’ s sc op e a nd thus do no t bind th e d ist ric t c ou rt
. See U
. S. S. G . § 6B1. 4( d). A ccor dingl y, when th e di st r i ctc o ur t i nde pen den tly qua nt i fi ed th e am ount of drugs att ributabl e to Col e base d o n info rm ati on in the prese ntence re port, i t di d not null i fy the pl ea ag re em en t. T h e a p p ea l w aiv er in C ole ’s a gr ee m en t is en for c ea b le, an d w e d ism iss h is a p p ea l.N o. 06

- 2547 3 I . B a c kg r o und Pa r r i shCo l e pl ea ded g ui l ty to o ne c o unto fdi st r ibut i ng hero i n i n vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1)
. A s par t o f h is w rit te n p lea ag re em en t w ith th e g ov er n m e n t, C ole a g r e e d th a th e h a d d i s t r ib u t e d b e t we e n 1 0 0 a n d 4 0 0 g r a ms ofher oi n a n d b etween 250 and 1, 000 gr am s o fm ar ij uana. Col e a l so agr eed to forfei t ( am ong othe r thi ngs) $8 4, 150 inca sh , w h ich h e a c kn ow led ge d h e e ar n ed t h r o u gh h is drug tr ade. In additi on t o droppin g ei ght o thernar cot i csr el at ed ch ar ges, the g o ve r nm en t ag r ee d t o r ec o m m en d a r edu ct i o n i n Col e’ s o ffen se l ev elf o r a cc ept an ce o fr es po ns ib i l i t y a nd a s e nt e nc e e qu a l t o the l o w e nd o fh i s a ppli cabl e guidel i nes r ange. Col e’ s pl ea agr eem ent a l so i ncl ud ed a wai vero fhi s r i ght t o appeal hi s s entence
. The dis tr i ct j ud ge w ait ed u nti l afterhe ha d rec ei ved an d r ev i ewe d the pr es en te nc e r epo r t be f o r e ac ce ptingthe p l e a a g r e e me n t ’ s r e c o mme n d a t i o n s . T h a tr e p o r tr e c o mm ended conver ti ng the cas h Col e a gr eed to f or fei t into a d ru g q u an tit y for se n te n c in g p u rp os es , s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. R ivera , 6 F
. 3 d 4 3 1 , 4 4 6

- 4 7( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) , s o methingthat ne i th erthe g o ve r nm en t no r Co l e ha d c o ns i der ed dur i ng pl eane g o ti at i o ns . At s en te nc i ngthe go ve r nm en t as k ed th e dist ri ct c ourtto adhere to the drug quanti ti es Col e had ad m itted i n h is plea agreem en t in det erm ining C ole’ s sente nce, but the di str i ct courtd ecl i ned to do so; the j ud ge concl ud ed that U
. S. S. G. § 6B1. 4( d) perm i tte d hi m to rej ect f ac tu als ti pul at i o ns in th e pl ea a g r ee m en t. Adopt i ngthe i nfo rm ati on in the prese ntence re port, the co urt tr eat ed the c a s h a s the e qu i v a l e nto f8 3 2 g r a ms o fh e r o i n, wh i ch ra i sed C ol e’ s offense l eve l by six l eve l s and n ear l y doubl ed4 N o. 06

- 2547 hi s appl i cabl e g ui del i ne s r an g e. The di st r i ctc o ur t se ntence d C ol e t o 97 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, atthe bot tom of t h e a d vis or y g u id elin es r a n ge . C ole ap p ea led h is se nt en ce , a r g ui ngtha t th e di st r i ct co ur t er r ed byr ej ec ting the dr ug quanti ti es i n hi s pl ea agr eem ent.

I I . Discussi on The go ver nm ent ask s us to di sm i ss thi s a pp ealbec ause Col e wai ved hi s r i ght t o appeal hi s s enten c e in h i s pl ea ag r ee m en t. As a g en eralr ul e, a de fen dan t m aywai ve the r i g htt o a pp e a l h i s c o nv i c t i o n a nd s e nt e nc e, F ED . R. C RIM . P . 11(b )(1) (N ), a n d ap p ea l w aiv er s a re ge n er ally va lid if th ey are m ad e k n ow in gly an d vo lu n ta rily. S e e U nited S tate s v. Franklin , 54 7 F
. 3d 72 6, 73 1- 32 ( 7th Ci r . 2008). H owever, a know i ng and vo l untarywaive r m i ght no t be enf or ceabl e i fthe ple a w as not tak en i n com pli ance w i th Rul e 1 1 o f the Fed eral R ules o f C rim ina l P roc edu re . U nited Sta tes v. Weng er, 58 F .3d 28 0, 28 2 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ) (“If the a gr eem ent i s v ol untary, and tak en i n com pli ance w ith R u le 1 1, th en th e w aiv er of ap p ea l m u st b e h on or ed . I f the a gr eem ent i s invol untaryo r otherwise unenf or ceabl e, th en th e d e f e n d an t is en tit led to ap p ea l.”); see also U nited St at e s v. Lo ckwood, 41 6 F. 3d 604, 608 (7th Cir
. 20 05) ( obs er vi ng tha t wai ver s a re un en for ceabl e i fthe defe nd ant has b ee n se n te n c ed ba se d on co n st itu tio n ally im p e r m iss ible cri teri a, the sente nce e xceeds the st atuto rym axi m um , o r the defendant r ecei ved in effecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel d uring plea ne gotiations an d sent en cing p roceed ings). C ole c on te n d s th at th e d ist ric t cou rt ’s sen te n c in g d ec isio n di d not co m portwith the r equi re m ents ofRule 11N o. 06

- 2547 5 and ther ef or e the p l ea agr eem ent w as effecti vel y nul l i fi ed an d t h e a p p ea l w aiv er is u n en for c ea b le. Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. Ha re, 26 9 F
. 3d 859, 86 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( “A waive r ofappeali s v al i d, and m ust be enfo rce d, unle ss the a gr eem ent in w hi ch i t i s contained i s annu l l ed

. . . . ”)
. The m er i ts o fCo l e’ s Rul e 11 c lai m a re i nt er twi ne d wi ththe enf or ceabi l i ty ofhi s a pp ealwaive r; if Rule 11 did not re quir e the dist ric t co urt to use the drug- quanti ty am ou nt s in Cole’s p lea agree m en t for sen ten cing p urpo se s, th en the pl ea i s v al i d and C ol e’ s a pp ealwaive r i s enfo rce abl e. Thus, “the pl ea and the waiv erst and or f al l to gether. ” La tha m v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 52 7 F
. 3d 651, 65 3 (7th C ir. 2008). Pl ea agr eem ents ar e g ove rned byRule 11 ( c) , wh i ch m ak es so m e ty pes o f ag r ee m en ts be twe en the gove r nm en t and a defen d an t bind ing up on th e d is t rict court and oth e r s no t
. F o r e xa mpl e , i f the pa r t i e s “ a g r e e tha t a speci fi c se ntence orse ntenci ng r ange i s the appropr i ate dispos i ti on o fthe case , o r that a par ti cul arpro vi sion o f th e S ent en cingGui del i ne s, o r po l i cys ta te m en t, o r s en t e nc i ng f a c t o r do e s o r do e s no t a pp l y, ” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11 (c )( 1) ( C), the dist ri ct c ourti s bo und bythe parti es’ ag re e m e n t if th e c ou rtch oo se s t o a c c ep t t h e p lea , i d. 11 (c )(4)
. SeeU nite d State s v. O ’Nei ll, 43 7 F .3d 6 54 , 6 55- 57 ( 7t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( d e s c r ib i n gth e o p e r a t i o n o fa “ l o c k

- i n” pl e a a g r e e men tu nd e r Rul e 1 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C) )
. Co l e c o nt e nd s th at o n c e t h e d ist ric t c ou rtac c ep te d h is p lea , Ru le 11 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C) r e qu i r e d the di s t r i c tc o ur tt o u s e the drugqua nt i tya m o unts i n the pl ea a g r ee m en t i n i ts s en te nc i ng anal ysi s; the cour t co uld notaccep t th e pl ea, Col e a rgues, wi th o uta l so a cc ept i ngthe f ac tu als ti pul at i o ns i n the6 N o. 06

- 2547

Col e thi nks thatthe t i m ing ofthe di s t ri c tc our t ’ s dec i s i on 1 s h e d s l i g h to n w h e th e r h e e n t e r e d i n t o a R u l e 1 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C) agreem ent. F or s up port, he points out that a dist ri ctcourt c on f r on t e d wi th a Ru le 11 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C) a gr e e m e ntm a y on l y a c c e pt 

### (continued...) ag re em en t. C

f. U nite d State s v. M arti n , 28 7 F. 3d 609, 62 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( “A pl ea agr eem ent i s a uni fi ed docum ent, and even i fthe dis tr ict cour t wanted to i t co uld not acc ep t pa rt and rej ect p art.”). N o t al l par ti cul ar i ze d pr o vi si o ns i n a pl ea a g r ee m en t operat e to m ake a ple a a gr eem ent b i nd i ng o n the dist ri ct c ou rt
. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 1 1( c) ( 1) ( B) ( pr o vi di ngtha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t i s no t bo und b y the pa r ti es ’ a g r ee m en t that the g ove rnm en t w i l l “r eco m m end, o r agr ee not to o ppo se the de fen dan t’ s r eque st, tha t a par ti cul ars en tence o r se n tenci ng r ange i s a pp ro pri ate o r that a par ti cula r provi si on o fthe Se ntenci ng Guidel in es , o r pol i cy state m en t, or s e n ten cing factor d oes not ap p ly”). Cole’s p lea ag re em en t c on ta in ed m an y p ro vis ion s e x p licit ly prese rv i ng the nonbi nd i ng char acte r ofthe agr eem ent. F o r e xa m pl e, the a g r ee m en t spe ci fi ca l ly state d tha t th e dist ri ct c ourt“wil l determ i ne the appli cabl e guidel i nes ra nge” and “ w i l l deter m i ne al l m att er s, w hetherf actualo r l eg al, r el ev an t to th e appl i ca ti o n” o f th e g ui del i ne s, and that “the speci fi c se ntence to be i m posed .

. . wil l be deter m i ned by the j ud ge.” C ol e cl ai m s no nethel ess th ato th erpa r ts o fthe a g r ee m en t

— s pe c i fi c a l l y h i s drugqua nt i tya dm i ss i o ns

— w er e bind i n g and that these bro ught hi s a g r e e ment w i thi n the ter m s o f R ule 11(c)(1)( C ). 1N o. 06

- 2547 7



### (...continued) i t, r ej ec ti t, or defera dec i s i on u ntil the c our tr evi ews the p r esen ten ce rep or t. F ED . R. C RIM . P
. 1 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( A)
. B e c a u s e the c our tdefer re d a de c i s i on on ac c ept i ng the r ec om m en dat i ons in th e p lea a g reem en t un til it rev iew ed the p rese n t e n c e rep or t, Co le cl aim s he ente red int o a bind ing R ule 11( c)(1)(C ) agree

m en t
. But w hen or w hether the dist ri ctcourt acce pts a plea ag reem en t ha s no b ear ing on w he the r a p lea a g reem en t is b ind i ng o r nonbi ndi ng un der Rul e 11 ( c ) ( 1) ; the r el eva nt i nquiry focus es on w hatthe gove rn m en tan d the defen dant a g re ed u p o n . S ee U n ited Sta tes v . B e n n ett, 990 F. 2d 998, 1004 (7 th C ir . 19 9 3 ). Rul e 11 ( c) ( 1) ( C) o nl y ap p li es t o a g r ee m en ts r eg ar di ng se n te n c es , sen te n c in g ra n ge s, or se n te n c in g fa c to rs ; i t d oe s n otap p l y t o fa c tu al s tip u lat ion s. T yp ica lly, R u le 11( c) ( 1) ( C) a gr eem ents expli citly co ntai n an ag re ed-upon s en te n c e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. We at hi ngt on , 5 0 7F
. 3 d 1 068, 1070 (7t h Cir

. 20 07) , o r an ag re ed-upon se ntenci ng r ange, e . g. , U ni t e d St at e s v. Bli nn , 490 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2007). Rule 11( c) ( 1) ( C) a gr eem ents m ay al so expla i n how an ag r ee d- upo n s en te nc e wi l l b e affec te d b y a co ur t’ s r es o l utio n of d isp u te d iss u es . Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. Lind er, 53 0 F
. 3d 556, 5 59 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( par ti es a g r ee d de fen dan t wo ul d b e s e nt e nc e d t o 50% o fthe l o w e nd o fthe a pp li cab le guidelines ran ge). Col e’ s p l ea agr eem ent c ontains none ofthes e ind i ci a. The pa r ag r aphi n Co l e’ s pl ea agreem en t addr es singthe am ount o fdrugs he d i str ibuted does not conta i n an agr eem ent o n “a speci fi c sente nce o r sente nci ng r ange” o r an ag re em ent r e gar ding the a pp l i cabi l i ty ofany “part i cul ar8 N o. 06

- 2547 pr o vi si o n o f th e g ui del i ne s, a po l i cy st at ement, o r a s en tenci ng fa c to r. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 1 1( c) ( 1) ( C)
. To the c o ntr ar y, as we hav e no ted, o therpor ti ons ofthe agr eem en t sp ecifi cally state that the d istri ct cou r t “ w il l d eterm i ne the appl i cabl e g ui del i ne ra ng e” a nd “ wi l l de te r m i ne all m at te rs , w h et h er fac tu al or lega l, re lev an t t o th e a p p licati on” ofthe gui del i nes. The ag re em ent a l so provi des that “the speci fi c sente nce to be i m posed

. . . w i l l be de t e r mi ne d by the j ud g e . ” No thingi n the p a r a g r a ph conta i ni ng Col e’ s adm i ssi ons as to drug qu an ti ti es al ter ed these ge nera l pro vi si ons. I nstea d, Col e’ s a dm i ssi ons re gar ding drug quanti ti es ar e th e e q u iva len t o f a st ip u lat i o n of fac ts th at falls outsi de Rule 11 ’ s s cope. The di str i ct cour t i s no t bo und by the p a r t i e s ’ s t i pu l a t i o ns , a p o i ntc o nfi r med b y the gui del i n e s. See U. S
. S
. G. § 6 B1
. 4 ( “ A pl e a a g r e e men t may be acco m panie d by a wri tte n sti pu l ati on o ff acts r el ev ant t o sente nci ng. . . . The co urt i s no t bo und bythe sti pu l ati on, but m ay with the ai d ofthe prese ntence re port, d e t e r mi n e th e f a c t s r e l e v a n tt o s e n t e n c i n g . ” ) T h e c o mm entar y a ccom panyi ng § 6B1. 4 e m phasi zes thi s point: Se cti on 6 B1. 4( d) m ake s cl earthatthe cou rt i s no t ob l i ged to acc ept the st i pu l ati on o fthe parti es. Even th o u g h s t i p u l a t i o n s a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e a c c u r a t e a nd c om p l ete , the cour t ca nnot r el y e xcl usi vel y upon sti pu l ati ons i n asce rt ai ni ng the fac tor s r el evantto th e d et e r m ination of the sen ten ce. Rath er, i n d eterm ining th e factu al basis for the s e n ten ce, the cou rt w ill con sid er th e s tip u lat ion, togetherwith the res ults of t he pre s e nt e nc e inv e s t igat i on , a nd a ny o th err el ev an t i nf o r m at i o n.N o. 06

- 2547 9 ( Em phasi s add ed. ) Si m ply m enti oni ng a parti cul argui del i ne pro vi si on ( as Col e’ s pl ea agr eem ent doe s) is not en o ug h t o c o nver t a f ac tu als ti pul at i o n int o a b i ndi ng Rul e 11 ( c) ( 1) ( C) a g r ee m en t. I f th e p ar ti es mean t to b i nd th e di st r i ctc o ur t at s en te nc i ng, the n the a g r ee m en t wo u l d hav e c o n t a i n e d s p e c i fi c l a n g u a g e t o th a te ffe c t
. As i t was , the a g r ee m en t ex p li citly l eft al l a spe ct s o fthe gui del i nes c al cul ati on a nd the ult i m ate se ntence up to the c ourt
. A s s uch, the cour t was fre e t o accept the pl ea yetr ely o n the prese ntence re portto r each i ts own drugqu a nt i t y fi nd i ng s n o t wi ths t a nd i ngthe p a r t i e s ’ s t i pu l ati on about the dr u g q uanti ti es. Duri ng the Rule 11 pl ea col l oquy, Col e hi m sel fackn owledge d that the drugquan t i t y a mou nt s we r e n o tb i nd i ng; wh e n the j ud ge adv i se d him th atthe c o ur t was fr ee t o di sr eg ar d the re c om m en d at ion s in th e p l ea ag re em en t a n d th at C ole co ul d f ac e up to 20 y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en t, he sa i d he un de r s t o o d. Col e’ s ar g um en t i s si m i l art o the o ne made bythe defen dan t i n U nited Sta tes v. B enn ett, 990 F. 2d 998 (7th C ir. 19 93 )
. In Be nnettthe de fen dan t ha d s ti pul at ed th athe wa s nota c a r e e r o ffe nd e r, b uth e h a d c o nc e a l e d a pri orvi ol ent fel ony that th e proba ti on o ffi ceruncove re d w hi l e pr eparing the pre sente nce r epor t. 99 0 F
. 2d at 1000

- 01. A l though the go ver nm ent ha d a sked the di str i ct co ur t to abi de bythe pa r ti es ’ s ti pul at i o n, we co nclud ed that the p arties’ agr e e m en t as to the d efend an t’s c ar ee r-o ffen d er st at u s d id n otbin d th e c ou r t b e c au se it did notf al l withi n t h e categ or y o fag re em ents that R u le 1 1 m ak es bin d in g in se n te n c in g p ro c ee d in gs . Id. at 1 0 0 2

- 0 4
. T ru e , the ty pe s o fa g r e e men t s tha tma y b i nd a10 N o. 06

- 2547 dist ri ct c ourtunder Ru l e 1 1 have bee n expand ed si nce B en n ett, com pa re id. a t 1 0 0 1 ( qu o t i ng a pr i o r v e r s i o n of Rul e 11 ( c) ( 1) ( C) that p r o vi ded th atthe pa r ti es might ag re e t h at “a sp ec ific s en te n c e is th e a p p r op ria te d isp os itio n of th e c as e” ), with F ED . R. C RIM . P. 1 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C) ( pr o v i di ng tha t a di str i ct c ourtm ay be bound by the par ti es’ ag r ee m en t r eg ar di ngs pec i fi c se nt en ce s, s en te nc i ng ra nges, o r the a pp l i cati on o fo th er gui del i nes pr ovi si ons, pol i cy sta tem ents, o r sente nci ng f acto rs ) , but i ts re asoni ng i s stillso und

. Rule 11 ( c) ( 1) ( C) doe s no t a pp l y t o st ip u lat ed fac ts , an d so th e d ru g-q u an tit y a m o u n ts in C ole’ s agreem en t d id n ot con strain th e d istri ct cou rt’s se nt en cingde ci si o n. Co l e ac k no wl edg ed as m uchi n the ag re em en t it se lf an d ath is p lea h ea rin g w h en h e s aid he un de r s t o o d tha tthe c o ur tr e t a i ne d c o mpl e t e fr e e do m to cal cul ate the appli cabl e s entencing guidel i nes r ange and determ i ne the appropr i ate se ntence. A ccor dingl y, th e di st r i ctc o ur t d i d no t nul l i fy Co l e’ s pl ea b y r ej ec ting th e dr ug - qua nt i tys ti pul at i o ns i n the pl ea a g r ee m en t, a nd the a pp eal w ai veri n Col e’ s pl ea agr eem ent i s e nfo rce abl e. The appeal i s D IS MIS S ED .

6- 30- 09