Opinion ID: 187347
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Guillen's Waiver is Valid

Text: We turn now to Guillen's claim her waiver of the right to appeal her sentence was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. As with the validity of a defendant's waiver of the right to counsel, our review is de novo. See Cunningham, 145 F.3d at 1392. In this case, the transcript of the plea hearing demonstrates that Guillen's waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Guillen argues her waiver was not made knowingly because the district court initially said she would always have the right to take an appeal if [she] thought [the] sentence was illegal. As the Government points out, however, the court later corrected this statement in light of Guillen's waiver. The court explained to Guillen she was waiving her right to appeal her sentence unless it was above the statutory maximum or was an upward departure from the Guideline range. Guillen then said she understood that, which leaves us with no reason to doubt Guillen's waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Guillen makes no argument that the district court failed to follow a prescribed sentencing procedure resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Instead, Guillen makes several arguments that have little relevance to our analysis. First, Guillen argues the district court voided the waiver agreement when it told her, at the end of the sentencing hearing, You do have the right to take an appeal from this sentence. If you want to do so you should tell [your attorney], and you have to let him know within ten days. This statement does not undermine the waiver agreement because it is correct; Guillen was entitled to appeal her sentence if it was above the statutory maximum or departed upward from the Guideline range. See United States v. Atterberry, 144 F.3d 1299, 1301 (10th Cir.1998) (holding similar comment about right to appeal sentence did not void waiver agreement). More important, a statement made at the sentencing hearing could not have informed (or misinformed) Guillen's decision to waive her right to appeal because that decision was made at the earlier plea hearing. See id. Next, Guillen argues she is entitled to appeal because she waived her right to appeal only under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and not under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Unlike § 3742, however, § 1291 does not give a criminal defendant a right to appeal. Rather, § 1291 gives the circuit courts subject matter jurisdiction over final orders of the district courts, including sentencing orders, see Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1322. Finally, Guillen argues her waiver should not be enforced because the district court impermissibly presumed any sentence within the Guideline range was reasonable. Here Guillen points to the district court's statement at the plea hearing that it starts with a presumption that a sentence within the Guideline range is reasonable. But see Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2465 (sentencing court does not enjoy the benefit of a legal presumption that the Guidelines sentence should apply). Guillen's argument that the court impermissibly applied a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the Guideline range is of the kind a reviewing court need not consider when the defendant has waived his right to appeal a sentence or the manner in which it was determined. As stated above, we will disregard a waiver agreement on account of a district court's procedural error only if the error results in a miscarriage of justice; that the district court presumed any sentence within the Guideline range would be reasonable deprived Guillen of no element essential to a lawful sentence. Guillen points to three decisions holding it impermissible for a district court to presume a sentence within the Guideline range is reasonable. See United States v. Ross, 501 F.3d 851, 853 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Conlan, 500 F.3d 1167, 1169-70 (10th Cir.2007); United States v. Wilms, 495 F.3d 277, 281-82 (6th Cir.2007). Notably, however, none of these cases involved a defendant who had waived his right to appeal his sentence. From our review of the transcript of Guillen's sentencing hearing, it is apparent the district court identified the correct Guideline range, considered the factors in § 3553(a), and chose a sentence within the Guideline range. Pursuant to the terms of the waiver agreement and the concomitantly limited scope of our review, we do not consider whether the district court erred by applying a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within that range. Moreover, because we hold Guillen's waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, we do not consider her arguments that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give sufficient weight to her poor health, her personal history, and her cooperation with authorities.