2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-29-2007 

# U S A v . G a r ne r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 06-3330

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . G a r ne r " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 524. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/524NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

No. 06- 3330
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. ME LI SS A G AR

NE R, a l s o kno wn a s , ME LI SS A G RE BA US KI Meli ss a Gar ner, Appe l l ant

On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e E astern D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. No. 06- c r - 00050- 2) Distri ct Judg e: Ho n. Jam es T. Gile s
Su bm itte d u nd er

Th ir d C ir cuit

LA R 3 4.1(a) on Jul y 13, 2007
Befo re : SLO VITE R, AL DISE RT and R OT H, Circ uit Jud ges

( Opi ni on fi l e d Augus t

29, 2007 )

O P I N I O N2

ROTH , Cir cuit

Judg e: Me l i s s aGarne r

wa s c har ge d wi th one c ount of c ons pi r a c y to co m m it bank
em bezz le m ent, identi ty

theft, and bank fraud, in violat ion of 18 U.S.C. § 3 71 . She plea ded gu il ty pu rs uant to a wri tt en plea agre em ent, wh ic h included a waiver of her r ights t o app ea l or coll at er al ly

atta ck her convicti on and sente nce. The a ppe l l a t e wa i ve r

c ont a i ne d four

l i m i t e d e xc e pt i on s: (1 ) i f the gove rnm e nt
a ppe a l e d fr om

the Di s tr i c t

Court ’s s e nt e nc e , Ga rne r c oul d a ppe a l a s we l l ; ( 2) i f the go vernm ent did no t a

pp ea l, Garner co u ld appeal if (a ) her se ntence exce eded the s tatutory
m a xi m um , ( b) the Di s tr i c t

Court e rr one ous l y de part e d upwar ds fr om the Gui de l i ne r ange , or ( c ) the Di s tr i c t Court , pur s uant t o Bo oker , im

po se d an un re as on able se ntence abov e the final Gu idel ine r ange as dete rm ined by the court. At the plea coll oq uy , the Distri ct

Co urt r evie wed the s e p ro v is i ons wi th Garne r and a s s ur e d tha t

s he e nt e r e d the pl e aknowi ngl y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y. T h e D istrict C o u rt sen ten cedG arn er to 3 6 m o n th s im p riso n m en t, w h ich w as w ith in the c al culate d G uideli ne Rang e of 3 3-41 m on ths. Garner t im el y appeal ed. W it

h n ew
c ouns e l , Garne r now ar gue s tha t he r tr i a l c ouns e l wa s c ons t i t ut i ona l l y i ne ffe c t i ve for

fa i l i ng to o b j ect to certain d isp u tedsectio n s o f th e p resen ten ce rep o rt. We h av e no j uris dict ion o ver this a pp ea l bec ause no ne of

the a pp el late waiver
exce ptions prov ided fo r in the plea agre em ent ap p ly to th is ca se . See Unite d S tates v . Khat tak , 273 F.3d 55 7, 56 1-63 (3d C ir . 200 1). Altho u g h “t h er e m ay be an un usual3

circu m stan ce w h ere an erro r am o u n tin g to m iscarriag e o f j u stice m ay

in v alid ate th e w aiv er,” i d. at 5 6 2 , n o su ch circu m stan ce ex ists h ere. In a n y case, w e u su ally d ef er in ef f ectiv en ess assistan ce o f

co u n sel claim s to co llateral attack , ex cep t u n d er o n e “n arro w ex cep tio n ” –i.e.,

“ whe n the reco rd is s uffi c i e nt t o a l l ow de t e rm i na t i on of tha t i s s ue . ” Tha t

e xc e pt i on i s not ap p licab le to th is case. Uni t e d Stat es v . Thornt on , 327 F.3d 26 8, 27 1 (3d Cir. 20 03 ). W e the r e for e gr ant

the gove rnm e nt ’ s m ot i on t o e nfor c e Garne r ’ s a ppe l l a t e wa i ve r

and
we wi l l di s m i s s the a

ppe a l for l a c k of a ppe l l a t e jur i s di c t i on. S

ee U n ited Sta tes v. L o ckett , 406 F.3d . 207 , 212 -13 (3d Cir. 20 05 ).