Opinion
No. 18-2945
06-27-2019
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Terrance L. Wright Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [Unpublished] Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
On January 21, 2018, Terrence Wright pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to Possession with Intent to Distribute 50 Grams or More of Methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The district court sentenced him to 108 months' imprisonment followed by eight years of supervised release. Wright now appeals asserting the district court erred when it applied the career offender guideline in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. Because Wright knowingly waived his right to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.
The Honorable Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. --------
I. Background
The plea agreement contained the following appeal waiver:
The defendant expressly waives his right to appeal his sentence, directly or collaterally, on any ground except claims of: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) prosecutorial misconduct; or (3) an illegal sentence. An "illegal sentence" includes a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum, but does not include less serious sentencing errors, such as a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines, an abuse of discretion, or the imposition of an unreasonable sentence. . . .During the change of plea hearing the court went through the plea agreement in some detail with Wright.
On August 30, 2018, Wright appeared before the district court for sentencing. The court overruled Wright's objection to the application of the career offender guideline, finding that he had two predicate convictions for crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses. Specifically, the court found that both Wright's 2001 Missouri second-degree robbery and his 2002 Missouri sale of a controlled substance qualified as predicate offenses.
The district court found an applicable guideline range of 262-327 months and, after granting the government's substantial assistance motion, imposed the 108-month sentence. The court explained the reasons for its below-guideline sentence, stating:
My sentence is based on, one, the horrific childhood you had. While you have a high criminal history, a lot of it was in your very young, youthful days. And in the level of cooperation that you did produce to the government. I am mindful that you face a supervised release violation that we'll take up and consider next.Consistent with Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the sentencing hearing concluded with the court informing the defendant that any appeal must be taken within fourteen days of the entry of the sentence.
II. Discussion
Wright argues that the appeal waiver he signed does not actually bar his appeal. We review de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver. United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Sisco, 576 F.3d 791, 795 (8th Cir. 2009)). We will enforce an appeal waiver if the plea agreement and waiver were knowingly and voluntarily made so long as enforcement of the waiver does not result in a miscarriage of justice. Id. (citing United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)).
This record establishes that Wright knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal in the absence of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or an illegal sentence resulting in a miscarriage of justice. We have previously held that a sentence is not illegal when it involves a misapplication of the sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Lumpkins, 687 F.3d 1011, 1015 (8th Cir. 2012) (on a U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 claim, enforcing an appeal waiver that specified that a guideline misapplication was not an "illegal sentence" for purposes of the appeal waiver). The illegal sentence exception to an appeal waiver is "extremely narrow" and specifically does not apply to a misapplication of the guidelines. Andis, 333 F.3d at 892.
As Wright has asserted no claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct, there are no grounds present for declining to enforce the appeal waiver.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, Wright's appeal is dismissed.