Opinion ID: 153166
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentencing Attack

Text: Defendant next argues that the district court erred by finding that she was a supervisor in a criminal activity. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The government responds that 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c) precludes our review of Defendant’s appeal of her sentence in the instant case. In reply, Defendant maintains that we can review her sentence appeal under §§ 3742(a)(1), and (2) 1 Defendant asserts that her previous counsel was ineffective for failing to file a claim on her behalf in the civil forfeiture action and for failure to file a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. We dismiss this claim without prejudice to allow Defendant to pursue relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 1995) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings). 6 because the district court’s finding that she was a supervisor in a criminal activity will entail “collateral consequences”--i.e., the Bureau of Prisons will classify Defendant as a higher security risk and exclude her from minimum security institutions. We agree with the government. Appeals of right from a criminal sentence are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Section 3742(a) explains that a defendant may appeal her sentence if the sentence: (1) was imposed in violation of law; (2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; or (3) is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range . . .; or (4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (emphasis added). The government maintains, however, that § 3742(c) limits a defendant’s right to appeal her sentence in cases involving a plea agreement that includes a specific sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(1)(C). We agree. Section 3742(c) provides: In the case of a plea agreement that includes a specific sentence under rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure-- (1) a defendant may not file a notice of appeal under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) unless the sentence imposed is greater than the sentence set forth in such agreement. Reading these provisions together, in a case involving a plea agreement with a specific sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(1)(C), a defendant can appeal her sentence only if the sentence: (1) was imposed in violation of law; (2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines; or (3) is greater than the sentence set forth in the plea agreement. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3742(a), (c). Applying these provisions, Defendant does not argue that her sentence is greater than the sentence the parties agreed upon in the plea agreement. She could not. The court imposed the 7 sentence the parties agreed upon--seven years. Instead, Defendant argues that we may review her sentence under § 3742(a)(1), or (2) because the district court’s allegedly incorrect factual finding will have collateral consequences. She cites two Ninth Circuit cases--United States v. Montenegro-Rojo, 908 F.2d 425 (9th Cir. 1990), and United States v. Mares-Molina, 913 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1990). Montenegro-Rojo and Mares-Molina, are inapposite, however. Both cases addressed mootness, not the appeal of a sentence under §§ 3742(a), (c). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendants’ appeals were not moot, even though they had served their terms of imprisonment, because their sentences might have “collateral consequences” in the future. Montenegro-Rojo, 908 F.2d at 431 n.8; Mares-Molina, 913 F.2d at 773 n.3. The Ninth Circuit’s reference to “collateral consequences,” however, did not involve sentence appeals under §§ 3742(a), (c). Contrary to Defendant’s argument, §§ 3742(a), (c) does not establish an avenue for a defendant to appeal findings of a district court that allegedly entail “collateral consequences.” We have found no case reading such an exception into the statute, and we decline to do so. Moreover, §§ 3742(a)(1), and (2) do not otherwise authorize this appeal because Defendant’s sentence was not imposed in violation of law or as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines.2 Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to review Defendant’s contention that the 2 Section 3742(a)(2) provides Defendant the nearest avenue of appeal. Defendant fails, however, to allege that the court’s finding that she was a supervisor in a criminal activity had any effect at all on the imposition of her seven-year sentence. Indeed, the court imposed the sevenyear sentence pursuant to the parties’ agreement, without reference to any enhancement under the guidelines. Instead, Defendant maintains that the court’s finding will affect her placement by the Bureau of Prisons. We decline, however, to read into the statute an avenue for appeals challenging post-sentence placement by the Bureau of Prisons. The statute is clear; Congress intended “to provide only ‘a limited practice of appellate review of sentences’” in specific enumerated categories in § 3742. United States v. Colon, 884 F.2d 1550, 1553 (2d Cir. 1989) 8 district court erred by finding she was a supervisor in a criminal activity. We AFFIRM Defendant’s conviction and DISMISS the sentencing portion of Defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (quoting S. Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2nd. Sess. 149 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3332)). Under the terms of § 3742(a)(2), we must ask whether Defendant’s sentence was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines. Defendant has not made that argument; we will not make it for her. Here, the sentence imposed would have been the same regardless--i.e., seven years. Because the court’s finding does not affect the imposition of Defendant’s sentence, § 3742(a)(2) does not provide her an appellate avenue. 9