## United States Court of App eals
F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 32 40

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s
v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* Nort he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

. Kev in C. Nels on , *

* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Ju ne 11 , 20 12 Fi le d: Ju ly 17, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

Kev in Nels on pl ead ed gu il ty to c o n s p i r acy to m an uf act ur e an d di st rib ut e 50
gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 6. Thi s of fen se carr ie s a st at ut or y m in im um se nt en ce of 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Se e 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A)(v ii i). Bec au se Nels on pr ov id ed substa nti al assi st an ce in th e in ve st ig at io n of ot he r pe rs on s, th e go ve rn m en t m ov ed pu rs ua nt to USSG § 5K1 .1 an d 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (e) to red uc e hi s se nt en ce be lo w th e st at ut or y m in im um

. The di st ric tco ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n an d se nt en ced Nels on to 48 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d fiv e 1

y ears of s up erv is ed rel eas e.

A red uc ti on be lo w th e st at ut or y m in im um se nt en ce pu rs ua nt to § 35 53 (e) m us t be b a s ed ex cl us iv el y on as si st an ce-r el at ed co ns id erat io ns

. Uni te d St at es v. Bur ns , 57 7 F .3d 88 7, 8 94 (8t h C ir. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). In th is cas e, th e di st ric t j ud ge to ld th e de fen da nt th at he di sa gr eed wit h th e la w, an d w o u l d g i v e “ a su bs ta nt ia ll y lo wer

se nt en ce” if he ha d di sc ret io n to red uc e th e se nt en ce fu rth er ba se d on th e fact or s se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Nels on no w ap pe al s, arg u i n g t ha t th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve rel ie d o n t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s t o re du ce h is sen te nc e fu rth er.

W e do no t reac h th e m eri ts of th is co nt en ti on , be cau se Nels on waiv ed hi s rig ht
to ap pe al th e se nt en ce on th is gr ou nd

. In hi s pl ea ag reem en t, Nels on waiv ed th e rig ht
to ap pe al th e se nt en ce im po se d, ex cep t in th e fo ll owi ng li m it ed ci rcu m st an ces : “ (1 ) if th e se nt en c e is no t in acco rd an ce wit h th is pl ea ag reem en t; (2 ) if th e se nt en ce im po se d e x c eed s th e m ax im um st at ut or y pe na lt y ; an d (3 ) if th e se nt en ce is

co ns ti tu ti on al ly de fect iv e.” R. Doc

. 51 , at 15 ¶ 41

. Nels on arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is “ co ns ti tu ti on al ly de fect iv e,” be cau se Uni te d St at es v. Boo ker
, 54 3 U.S. 22 0 (2 00 5)
,
a n d it s pr og en y “ ha ve de m on st rat ed th at th ere ha ve be en to o m an y res tri ct io n s pl ace[ d] up on th e au th or it y of th e s e n t e n c i n g c ou rt.” Rep ly Br. 1. The Si xt h Am en dm en t, ho wev er, do es no t fo rb id al l de te rm in at e se nt en ci ng sc he m es

. Bla kel y

v. W as hi ng to n , 54 2 U.S. 29 6, 30 8 (2 00 4)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t reco gn iz ed th e po li cy go al s of le gi sl at ur es to m ak e se nt en ces pr op or ti on al to th e gr av it y of th e of fen se s an d
to ach ie ve pa rit y am on g de fen da nt s, an d em ph as iz ed th at no th in g in it s Si xt h Am en dm en t de ci si on s “ im pu gn s th os e sa lu ta ry ob

jecti ve s.” Id

. Thi s co ur t he ld aft er Boo ker an d Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S

. 3 8 ( 20 07 ), th at di st ric t co ur ts are st il l

The Hon or ab le Mar k W

. Ben ne tt , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. -2

-bo un d by th e st ric tu res se t fo rth in § 35 53 (e). Bur ns , 57 7 F.3 d at 89 4. The refo re, th e

se nt en ce i m

po se d i n t hi s ca se is no t “ co ns ti tu ti on al ly defec ti ve .”

The gr ou nd on whi ch Nel so n se ek s to ap pe al fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of th e ap pe al waiv er. Nels on do es no t di sp ut e th at hi s waiv er was kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary,

an d he do es no t su gg es t th at en fo rcem en t of th e ag reem en t wou ld r e s u l t in a

m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. W e th eref or e en fo rce th e waiv er. Se e Uni te d St at es v. And is , 33 3 F .3d 88 6 (8 th Cir . 20 03 ) (en ba nc ). The ap pe al is di sm is se d.

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

-3

-