United States v. Bell , 437 F. App'x 658 ( 2011 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 24, 2011
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 11-6080
v. (D.C. Nos. 5:10-CV-00874-F &
5:08-CR-00303-F-1)
CAROLYN ANN BELL, (W.D. Oklahoma)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Carolyn Ann Bell filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
The court denied the motion and denied Defendant’s request for a certificate of
appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring COA to appeal
denial of § 2255 relief). Defendant seeks a COA from this court. We grant her
motion to proceed in forma pauperis but deny the application for a COA and
dismiss the appeal because she waived her right to pursue a collateral attack on
her conviction or sentence.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2008, Defendant was indicted for possessing 50 grams or
more of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2008). After reaching an agreement with the government, she
pleaded guilty. The plea agreement provided that she could not appeal or
collaterally challenge her guilty plea or sentence unless the district court imposed
a sentence greater than the range prescribed by the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (USSG) after it had determined that range. In return, the government
agreed that Defendant was entitled to a downward adjustment in sentence for
acceptance of responsibility and that it would not file an information under
21 U.S.C. § 851 to establish her past convictions (which could mandate a life
sentence).
The presentence report (PSR) classified Defendant as a career offender
because of her two previous convictions for controlled-substance offenses. See
USSG § 4B1.1(a). Accordingly, her base offense level was 37, see id.
§ 4B1.1(b); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), which was reduced three levels for her
acceptance of responsibility, see USSG § 3E1.1. Defendant’s adjusted offense
level of 34 and criminal-history category of VI resulted in a guideline sentencing
range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. See id. § 4B1.1(b) (all career
offenders have a criminal-history category of VI); id. Ch. 5, pt. A.
Defendant initially objected to the PSR, arguing that she was not a career
offender because her previous convictions were related. See id. § 4B1.2(c) (the
-2-
two prior felony convictions establishing career-offender status must be
convictions that would be counted separately in criminal-history calculation). At
the sentencing hearing, however, Defendant’s attorney conceded that she was a
career offender. Defense counsel also acknowledged that the sentencing-
guidelines range was 262 to 327 months, but he argued that a sentence of 120
months would be sufficient. The district court disagreed and imposed a sentence
of 262 months’ imprisonment.
After Defendant attempted pro se to seek review in this court of her
conviction, her attorney filed a notice of appeal. The government moved to
dismiss the appeal, arguing that Defendant had waived her right to appeal in the
plea agreement. In response to the motion, defense counsel admitted that the
appeal was within the scope of the waiver and could state no reason not to enforce
it. We dismissed the appeal. See United States v. Bell, 343 F. App’x 376, 377
(10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).
On August 11, 2010, Defendant filed a § 2255 motion pro se. She raised
four grounds for relief related to her sentence and one related to her direct appeal.
In response, the government argued that the motion should be dismissed both
because Defendant’s claims were meritless and because she had waived her right
to pursue a collateral attack on her conviction and sentence. Defendant’s reply
included additional claims challenging her guilty plea. The district court
determined that the collateral-attack waiver should be enforced and all claims
-3-
relating to Defendant’s sentencing and appeal should be dismissed; in the
alternative, it determined that those claims failed on the merits. As for her claims
attacking the validity of the guilty plea and waiver, the court held (1) that the
claims were waived because they had not been made in Defendant’s initial § 2255
motion and (2) in the alternative, the claims failed on the merits.
II. DISCUSSION
“A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). This standard requires “a demonstration that . . . includes showing
that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other
words, an applicant must show that the district court’s resolution of the
constitutional claim was either “debatable or wrong.” Id.Liberally construing Defendant’s pro se application for a COA and
appellate brief, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), we discern 11
claims: (1) the waiver of her rights to pursue an appeal or collateral attack was
invalid because it was entered unknowingly and involuntarily and was the product
of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the district court’s chosen sentence was
motivated by racial bias; (3) her attorney was constitutionally ineffective for
-4-
failing to investigate her status as a career offender before advising her to plead
guilty; (4) the government breached the plea agreement by arguing that she should
be sentenced as a career offender; (5) her attorney was ineffective when he
conceded that she was a career offender; (6) her attorney made prejudicial
statements against her during sentencing and thus became an advocate for the
government; (7) her attorney was ineffective for failing to present her cooperation
with the government as a reason to depart downward from the guideline
sentencing range; (8) classification as a career offender significantly
overrepresented her criminal history; (9) the disparity between powder-cocaine
and crack-cocaine sentences requires that she be resentenced; (10) she is
“‘actually innocent’” of being a career offender, COA Appl. at 33; and (11) her
attorney was constitutionally ineffective during her appeal.
We first address the claims that relate to the validity of Defendant’s waiver
and guilty plea. Because the waiver and plea are valid, Defendant has waived all
other claims.
A. Claims Regarding the Waiver and Guilty Plea
Defendant argues that the waiver in her plea agreement is invalid and that
her attorney was ineffective when advising her to plead guilty. She also argues
-5-
that the government breached the plea agreement. We hold that the district
court’s resolution of these issues on the merits was not debatable or wrong. 1
(1) Validity of Waiver
To determine whether Defendant’s right to bring her § 2255 motion has
been waived, we consider three requirements for enforceability of a waiver: “(1)
[that] the disputed [motion] falls within the scope of the waiver of [collateral-
attack] rights; (2) [that] the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived h[er]
[collateral-attack] rights; and (3) [that] enforcing the waiver would [not] result in
a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir.
2004) (en banc) (per curiam); see United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975
(10th Cir. 2009) (applying Hahn analysis to collateral-attack proceeding). “In
determining a waiver’s scope, we will strictly construe appeal waivers and any
ambiguities in these agreements will be read against the Government.” Hahn, 359
F.3d at 1325 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
The waiver provision in Defendant’s plea agreement reads:
Defendant also understands that the Court has jurisdiction and
authority to impose any sentence within the statutory maximum for
the offense(s) to which she is pleading guilty. Defendant further
understands that Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291, and
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742, give her the right to
appeal the judgment and sentence imposed by the Court.
1
Because Defendant’s arguments fail on the merits, we need not determine
whether the district court was correct to rule, in the alternative, that Defendant
had waived these arguments by failing to include them in her initial memorandum
in support of her § 2255 motion.
-6-
Acknowledging all this, defendant in exchange for the promises and
concessions made by the United States in this plea agreement,
knowingly and voluntarily waives her right to:
a. Appeal or collaterally challenge her guilty plea, sentence
and restitution imposed, and any other aspect of her conviction,
including but not limited to any rulings on pretrial suppression
motions or any other pretrial dispositions of motions and issues;
b. Appeal, collaterally challenge, or move to modify under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) or some other ground, her sentence imposed
by the Court and the manner in which the sentence is determined,
provided the sentence is within or below the advisory guideline range
determined by the Court to apply to this case. Defendant
acknowledges that this waiver remains in full effect and is
enforceable, even if the Court rejects one or more of the positions
[on sentencing agreed to by the parties].
Plea Agreement at 5–6, United States v. Bell, No. 5:08-CR-00303-F (W.D. Okla.
Jan. 12, 2009), ECF. No. 22. Noting that the waiver provision does not
specifically mention § 2255 motions, Defendant relies on United States v. Pruitt,
32 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 1994), to argue that “‘[a] plea agreement does not waive the
right to bring a § 2255 motion unless it does so expressly. The government gets
what it bargains for but nothing more.’” COA Appl. at 10, quoting Pruitt, 32 F.3d
at 433. Pruitt is readily distinguishable, however, because there the defendant’s
plea bargain included a waiver of appeal but not a waiver of the right of collateral
attack. See id. at 432. We have held that a waiver of the right to “appeal or
collaterally challenge” encompasses a § 2255 motion. Pinson, 584 F.3d at 974(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, Defendant’s § 2255
motion is within the scope of her waiver.
Turning to the second requirement:
-7-
[T]o ascertain whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily
waived his appellate rights . . . we especially look to two factors.
First, we examine whether the language of the plea agreement states
that the defendant entered the agreement knowingly and voluntarily.
Second, we look for an adequate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11 colloquy.
Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325 (citation omitted). Defendant’s plea agreement states that
her waiver was entered “knowingly and voluntarily,” and that she “ha[d]
discussed [the plea agreement’s] terms with her attorney and understands and
accepts those terms.” Plea Agreement, supra, at 6, 11. During the plea colloquy
the district court thoroughly instructed Defendant that she was waiving her right
“to appeal or challenge in any other way” her guilty plea and sentence, as long as
the sentence was not greater than the sentencing-guidelines range, and she
indicated that she understood and accepted the waiver. Transcript of Plea
Proceedings at 11–12, Bell, No. 5:08-CR-00303-F (Jan. 12., 2009), ECF No. 70-1.
Defendant has the burden to present evidence establishing that the waiver
was not knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Cudjoe, 634 F.3d 1163,
1166 (10th Cir. 2011). She asserts that she “would have never agreed to waive
her Appeal or Post Conviction rights to collaterally attack her sentence had she
been made aware of the fact that she would be sentenced as a Career Offender,”
COA Appl. at 13, and that her attorney told her both that the sentence would be
ten years, and that the government would not seek to enhance her sentence. She
also states that she understood that the government would file a motion under
-8-
Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) or USSG § 5K1.1 to reduce her sentence for substantial
assistance. She argues that because she was mistaken about these facts, her plea
was not knowing and voluntary.
But Defendant’s claims are contrary to her statements at the time of her
plea. She told the district court that she had received no promises or assurances
beyond what was in the plea agreement. See Tovar Mendoza v. Hatch, 620 F.3d
1261, 1269 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[S]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong
presumption of verity.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Defendant’s
argument amounts to the contention that her waiver could not be valid unless she
knew exactly what sentence she would receive. But we have firmly rejected
Defendant’s position. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327. Defendant’s waiver was
knowing and voluntary.
Finally, we examine whether enforcement of “the waiver will result in a
miscarriage of justice.” Id. We have held that a miscarriage can occur in only
four situations: “[1] where the district court relied on an impermissible factor
such as race, [2] where ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the
negotiation of the waiver renders the waiver invalid, [3] where the sentence
exceeds the statutory maximum, or [4] where the waiver is otherwise unlawful.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant raises only the first
two—racially motivated sentencing and ineffective assistance of counsel—as her
second and third claims on appeal.
-9-
Defendant’s claim that her race affected her sentence relies on the
following statement by her attorney at sentencing:
Beyond that, recently we’ve had several cases come in from
Lawton and it’s only recently that I’ve realized there is a major
problem with controlled substances in the Lawton area, but not only
is it controlled substances, but it’s gangs. And from talking with a
client just recently, the number of gangs in Lawton is increasing.
And I was quite honestly surprised by the amount of gang crime that
is occurring there.
Now, also from talking with clients that are coming from the
Lawton area, having felony convictions is making it extremely
difficult to find any kind of gainful employment. And as a result, a
lot of young people have resorted to dealing in drugs.
Putting [Defendant] away for 22 years is not going to solve the
problem in Lawton, but letting people know through a sufficient
sentence that the courts will not tolerate this crime may send the
proper message to those individuals who continue to commit crimes.
Sentencing Hearing at 21–22, Bell, No. 5:08-CR-00303-F (May 21, 2009), ECF
No. 70-2. Defendant argues that the references to gang problems in Lawton were
racially motivated statements by her attorney (she asserts that those involved in
gangs and selling crack in Lawton are predominantly black). She then claims that
the district court responded to this allegedly racially charged comment when
imposing sentence, as shown by its statement that “[i]t is my intent to make an
example out of you,” Sentencing Hearing, supra, at 27. Defendant’s arguments
fail. The district court said that there is no support in the record for the
contention that defense counsel “invoked race” or that the court considered it, R.,
Vol. 1 at 25, and we agree.
-10-
We now turn to Defendant’s claim that her waiver was invalidated by
ineffective assistance of counsel. “[A] plea agreement waiver of postconviction
rights does not waive the right to bring a § 2255 petition based on ineffective
assistance of counsel claims challenging the validity of the plea or the waiver.”
United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir. 2001). To establish
that her counsel was ineffective, Defendant must show both “that counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that she
was prejudiced by the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687–88 (1984). “[A] court need not determine whether counsel’s
performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the
defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. . . . If it is easier to dispose of
an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the ground of lack of sufficient
prejudice, . . . that course should be followed.” Id. at 697.
Defendant contends that her counsel was ineffective in advising her to
plead guilty before he had researched whether she could be sentenced as a career
offender. She states that when she pleaded guilty she therefore believed that her
sentence would be 10 years and that the government would move to reduce the
sentence further. But she has failed to show prejudice from her attorney’s alleged
deficiencies.
For a defendant who has pleaded guilty to show prejudice, she must show
that she would not have entered her plea but for her attorney’s deficient
-11-
performance. See Miller v. Champion, 262 F.3d 1066, 1075 (10th Cir. 2001). A
defendant’s “‘mere allegation’ that he would have insisted on trial but for his
counsel’s errors [is] necessary [but] ultimately insufficient to entitle him to
relief.” Id. at 1072. Here, Defendant has not even alleged that she would have
insisted on going to trial had she been aware that she might qualify as a career
offender. 2
Further, the circumstances of the plea hardly suggest that Defendant would
have rejected the plea if better represented by her attorney. First, the plea
agreement protected her against an even harsher sentence. If the government had
not agreed to forgo filing an information under 21 U.S.C. § 851 naming her prior
felony drug convictions, she would have faced a mandatory life sentence. See
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Second, the evidence against her was strong: a search
2
Insofar as Defendant argues that she would not have waived her right to
an appeal or a collateral challenge if her attorney had researched the career-
offender issue, she fails to show prejudice because she was clearly a “career
offender” under the guidelines. To be a career offender, Defendant needed to
have two separately counted felony convictions for controlled-substance offenses.
See USSG § 4B1.1(a). She does not contest that she had three prior felony
convictions for controlled-substance offenses. Her argument is solely that they
should not have been counted separately because she was never arrested for the
second and third offenses. But under the guidelines, it is dispositive that she was
arrested on the first offense before committing the other two; see id.
§ 4A1.2(a)(2), and she does not contest that she was arrested on the first offense
before committing the second. Thus, even if she had reserved the right to
challenge her being sentenced as a career offender, her challenge could not have
succeeded. And if her counsel had researched the issue (as she claims he did
not), the research would have informed her that the sentencing court had to
sentence her as a career offender, so she would have had no reason to reserve the
right to appeal on that issue.
-12-
of her home had uncovered more than 200 grams of crack cocaine in her bedroom.
The district court characterized the evidence as “overwhelming.” R., Vol. 1 at 33;
see Miller, 262 F.3d at 1074–75 (strength of the evidence against defendant is a
factor when considering prejudice “in the context of a guilty plea”).
(2) Breach of Plea Agreement
Defendant’s fourth claim on appeal is that the government breached her
plea agreement by arguing that she was a career offender under the guidelines. A
claim that the plea agreement has been breached is not barred by a waiver
provision in the agreement. See United States v. Trujillo, 537 F.3d 1195, 1200
(10th Cir. 2008).
The plea agreement provided that Defendant would receive a downward
adjustment to her offense level for acceptance of responsibility but that “[a]part
from any expressed agreements and stipulations, the parties reserve the right to
advocate for, and present evidence relevant to, other guideline adjustments and
sentencing factors for consideration by the U.S. Probation Office and the Court.”
Plea Agreement, supra, at 4. Defendant argues that this provision did not
authorize the government to advocate sentencing her as a career offender. She
relies on United States v. Roberts, 624 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 2010); but that case is
distinguishable. In Roberts the plea agreement stated that the base offense level
was 30. But career-offender status changed the defendant’s base offense level to
37. See id. at 243. The Fifth Circuit held that the plea agreement had been
-13-
violated because the government argued for a different base offense level than the
one to which it had stipulated. See id. at 248. Here, in contrast, the plea
agreement does not set a base offense level.
B. Other Claims
Defendant’s claims five through ten relate to purported errors in
sentencing. But because we have decided that Defendant validly waived her right
to pursue a collateral attack, no reasonable jurist could disagree with the district
court’s decision that these claims do not survive the waiver.
Finally, Defendant argues that she received ineffective assistance of
counsel during her direct appeal because her attorney conceded the validity of her
waiver of the right to appeal. But because the waiver was valid, Defendant had
no right to appeal. Counsel’s performance was neither deficient nor prejudicial.
III. CONCLUSION
We GRANT Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, DENY her
application for a COA, and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-14-