Court Opinion

ID: 9950852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 21:02:35.630784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:56.598317
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10491    Document: 50-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10491
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MARQUIS KEWON OLIVER,
       a.k.a. Fred,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00167-TFM-MU-1
USCA11 Case: 22-10491     Document: 50-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2024    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-10491

                            ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRANCH,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Marquis Oliver appeals his sentence of 188 months of im-
       prisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to pos-
       sess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. 21 U.S.C.
       § 846. After Oliver’s appointed appellate counsel moved to with
       withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
       738 (1967), we denied counsel’s motion without prejudice because
       counsel’s brief omitted three issues: whether the government
       breached the plea agreement by objecting to Oliver’s eligibility for
       safety-valve relief, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); whether Oliver was eligible
       for safety-valve relief or whether his appeal should be held in abey-
       ance pending our en banc rehearing of United States v. Garcon, 997
       F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2021), rev’d en banc, 54 F.4th 1274 (11th Cir.
       2022); and whether Oliver’s prior convictions qualified as crimes of
       violence for the career offender enhancement, United States Sen-
       tencing Manual § 4B1.1 (Nov. 2018). Oliver responded by filing a
       merits brief. We affirm.
              We ordinarily review whether the government breached a
       plea agreement de novo. United States v. De La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266,
       1269 (11th Cir. 2008). But when a defendant failed to object to an
       alleged breach in the district court, he must establish not only that
       an error occurred that was plain, but that the error affected his
USCA11 Case: 22-10491      Document: 50-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       22-10491               Opinion of the Court                          3

       substantial rights by “show[ing] a reasonable probability that, but
       for the error,” the outcome of his proceeding would have been dif-
       ferent. United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004); see
       Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
               Oliver argues that the government breached a provision of
       the plea agreement that prohibited it from objecting to his argu-
       ment that he was eligible for the safety valve despite his prior con-
       victions, but he concedes that he was nevertheless ineligible for
       safety valve relief because he refused to provide necessary debrief-
       ing information to the government. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) (re-
       quiring the defendant to have “truthfully provided to the Govern-
       ment all information and evidence the defendant has concerning
       the offense”). Because Oliver concedes that his sentence was unaf-
       fected by the alleged breach, he cannot establish plain error. See
       Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 142 n.4; Garcon, 54 F.4th at 1279 (explaining
       that “the sentencing court must find that a defendant satisfies each
       of subsections (f)(1) through (f)(5)” to be eligible for safety-valve
       relief (emphasis added)).
              Regarding his designation as a career offender, Oliver asserts
       that his “Prior Assault-related Convictions Qualified as Crimes of
       Violence for Purposes of the Career Offender Enhancement.” Oli-
       ver explains that trial counsel objected that Oliver’s convictions for
       attempted first-degree assault, ALA. CODE § 13A-6-20, and two
       counts of second-degree assault against a police officer, id. § 13A-6-
       21, should not qualify as crimes of violence, but Oliver offers no
       argument that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career
USCA11 Case: 22-10491     Document: 50-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2024    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-10491

       offender. See United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871 (11th Cir.
       2022). Even if Oliver had challenged his designation as a career of-
       fender, his appeal waiver would be unaffected by the government’s
       harmless breach of the separate safety-valve provision of the plea
       agreement, and he does not dispute that he knowingly and volun-
       tarily waived his right to appeal his sentence except in limited cir-
       cumstances that do not apply. See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d
       1343, 1351 (11th Cir. 1993).
             We AFFIRM Oliver’s conviction and sentence.