Court Opinion

ID: 9955815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 16:01:07.101543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:24.480882
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1539
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                                Joe Michael Johns

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                        for the District of North Dakota
                                 ____________

                          Submitted: December 11, 2023
                             Filed: March 29, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Joe Michael Johns pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court 1 imposed a sentence of

      1
        The Honorable Daniel M. Traynor, United States District Judge for the
District of North Dakota.
100 months of imprisonment. Johns appeals, arguing the district court erred in
imposing its sentence by undervaluing his substantial assistance to the government
in investigating and prosecuting others. Because we conclude his appeal falls within
the bounds of his plea agreement’s appellate-waiver provision, we dismiss Johns’s
appeal.

       In 2021, Johns and five other defendants were charged with drug trafficking
offenses stemming from their transporting drugs from Washington to distribute in
North Dakota. Though he was initially charged with three counts, Johns agreed to
plead guilty to the conspiracy count in exchange for the government dismissing the
possession and distribution counts. Johns’s plea agreement also contained an appeal
waiver, wherein Johns agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence, excluding
any imposed sentence “which is greater than the upper limit of the sentencing
guideline range determined by the sentencing court at the sentencing hearing.”
Johns confirmed to the district court he was voluntarily pleading guilty of conspiring
to distribute illegal drugs and he understood he was waiving his right to appeal.

       At Johns’s sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the recommended
sentencing range of 130 to 162 months of imprisonment under the United States
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines). Neither party objected to
these calculations, and the district court accepted the sentencing range. Even though
Johns’s offense carried a 120-month mandatory minimum sentence, the government
filed a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion advocating for Johns’s sentence to be below the
mandatory minimum, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), and recommending a sentence of 87
months of imprisonment. Johns argued the sentence should be even less than 87
months. The district court disagreed with both their recommendations, and it
sentenced Johns to 100 months of imprisonment based on Johns’s “horrendous
criminal history.” Johns seeks to appeal his sentence, but the government argues
Johns’s appeal must be dismissed because of his plea agreement’s appeal waiver.

                                         -2-
        We review de novo the legal question of whether a waiver of appellate rights
is valid. See United States v. Schneider, 40 F.4th 849, 852–53 (8th Cir. 2022). “A
defendant’s right to appeal is statutory, not constitutional, and may be waived.” Id.
at 853. “When reviewing a purported waiver, we must confirm that the appeal falls
within the scope of the waiver and that both the waiver and plea agreement were
entered into knowingly and voluntarily.” United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–
90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “Even when these conditions are met, however, we
will not enforce a waiver where to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice.”
Id. at 890. “The government bears the burden of establishing that the plea agreement
clearly and unambiguously waives the defendant’s right to appeal, and ambiguities
in the agreement are construed against the government.” United States v. Azure, 571
F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir. 2009).

       Johns’s appeal waiver is valid and enforcing it does not result in a miscarriage
of justice. Thus, dismissal of the appeal is required. See United States v. Knight,
939 F.3d 933, 936 (8th Cir. 2019). The plea agreement required Johns to waive his
right to appeal his sentence. The only exception was if Johns received a sentence
that exceeded the maximum Guidelines range determined to apply by the district
court. The exception does not apply because the 100-month sentence is less than the
unobjected-to maximum Guidelines range of 162 months.

       The record reflects Johns knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea
agreement, including the appeal waiver, and he does not argue otherwise. The
district court confirmed Johns read his plea agreement, understood it, and his
attorney answered all his questions about it. The district court ensured Johns entered
the plea agreement voluntarily, as Johns testified no one had made any promises or
assurances to him as to the length of his sentence, nor had anyone threatened or
forced him to plead guilty. Nor do we find any miscarriage of justice, as Johns did
not receive an illegal sentence, and in fact, he received a sentence below the
mandatory minimum of 120 months. See Andis, 333 F.3d at 891 (cautioning the
miscarriage of justice exception “is a narrow one and will not be allowed to swallow
the general rule that waivers of appellate rights are valid”).
                                         -3-
      Accordingly, we hold the plea agreement waives the issues presented, there is
no miscarriage of justice in enforcing it, and so we dismiss the appeal.
                        ______________________________

                                        -4-