United States v. Williams , 41 F. App'x 157 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 6 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 00-6417
(D.C. No. 00-CR-25-R)
MYRON ANDRE WILLIAMS, a/k/a (W.D. Oklahoma)
Inch,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges and STAGG, ** District
Judge. ***
Defendant-Appellant Myron Andre Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack), cocaine powder, and PCP in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he forfeited
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
The Honorable Tom Stagg, Senior District Judge, United States District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
***
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
all rights he had in any assets subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853,
and waived his right to appeal or collaterally challenge the sentence imposed
except under limited circumstances. 1 In exchange for the plea, the government
agreed to dismiss the other eight charges made against Mr. Williams in the
indictment. Mr. Williams timely filed Objections to the Pre-Sentencing
Investigation Report objecting to the constitutionality of a firearm enhancement,
denying he had a firearm during the commission of a felony, and objecting to the
sufficiency of the evidence for a firearm enhancement. The district court at
1
The plea agreement states in relevant part:
[Mr. Williams] in exchange for the promises and concessions made
by the United States in this plea agreement, knowingly and
voluntarily waives his right to appeal or collaterally challenge:
b. Defendant’s sentence as imposed by the Court and the
manner in which the sentence is determined, provided the
sentence is within or below the applicable guideline range
determined by the Court to apply to this case, even if the Court
rejects one or more of the positions of the United States or the
defendant set forth in paragraph 7 concerning the application
of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines; provided that (i) defendant
specifically does not waive the right to appeal an upward
departure from the sentencing guideline range determined by
the Court to apply to this case, and (ii) his waiver of rights to
appeal and to bring collateral challenges shall not apply to
appeals or challenges based on cases decided after the date of
this agreement which are held by the Tenth Circuit or Supreme
Court to have retroactive effect.
Plea Agreement at 9-10.
-2-
sentencing overruled Mr. Williams’ Objections. Sentencing Trans. at 22. After
concluding that the applicable sentence range was 235 to 293 months, the district
court sentenced Mr. Williams to 235 months of imprisonment and five years of
supervised release. Doc. 594.
Mr. Williams now seeks to appeal his sentence. Counsel for Mr. Williams
has filed an Anders brief, served a copy of the brief on Mr. Williams and now
requests that he be allowed to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Williams. Aplt. Br. at
4-5.
We have reviewed the case independently, including the transcript of the
sentencing proceedings and the presentence report. A defendant will be held to
the terms of a lawful plea agreement. United States v. Atterberry, 144 F.3d 1299,
1300 (10th Cir. 1998). A defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his
statutory right to appeal his sentence is generally enforceable. Id. We review the
question of whether the plea agreement was entered knowingly and voluntarily de
novo. United States v. Rubio, 231 F.3d 709, 711 (10th Cir. 2000). Counsel argues
that Mr. Williams could not have knowingly waived his statutory right to appeal
his sentence because he “[did] not have and [could] not have any knowledge of the
nature and magnitude of the sentencing errors he purport[ed] to have waived.”
Aplt. Br. at 9. Mr. Williams, however, entered his plea agreement after
consulting with counsel and in exchange for the dismissal of eight other counts
-3-
against him. Aplt. Br. at 8. The record reveals the district court conducted a
thorough inquiry at the plea hearing, during which Mr. Williams affirmed that he
understood the nature of the rights he was waiving. Nothing in the record
indicates that Mr. Williams’ decision to enter the plea agreement was other than
knowing and voluntary. Therefore, a valid plea agreement exists and Mr. Williams
is bound by it.
Given the enforceable plea agreement, Mr. Williams can only appeal (i)
upward departures from the sentencing guideline range determined by the district
court to apply and (ii) appeals based on cases decided after the date of the plea
agreement which are held by the Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court to have
retroactive effect. Plea Agreement at 10. Our review of the record reveals that the
district court did not upwardly depart from the range it determined to be
applicable.
With respect to exception (ii), the plea agreement was entered June 23,
2000. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), was decided on June 26,
2000 and is to be applied retroactively to all cases pending on direct review or not
yet final. United States v. Lujan, 268 F.3d 965, 967 n.2 (10th Cir. 2001). In
Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that other than a prior conviction, any fact that
increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must
be charged in the indictment. 530 U.S. at 482. The statutory maximum for
-4-
possession of a schedule II controlled substance with intent to distribute is 20
years regardless of the quantity involved. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Because Mr.
Williams was sentenced to less than 20 years, Apprendi does not apply in this case
irrespective of what the Indictment said about quantity. Count One of the
Indictment clearly states that Mr. Williams is charged with conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack), cocaine powder, and PCP, all
schedule II controlled substances. Indictment at 2. See United States v.
Thompson, 237 F.3d 1258, 1262 (10th Cir. 2001) (noting that neither 21 U.S.C. §
841 nor § 846 require a specific quantity of drugs as an element of the offense, the
maximum sentence under these statutes was twenty years, and no Apprendi
violation occurred where the defendant was sentenced to less than twenty years).
We AFFIRM Mr. Williams’ sentence insofar as the Apprendi claim; we
DISMISS his appeal based upon any other grounds. Mr. Williams’ petition to
proceed IFP is GRANTED. Appellate defense counsel’s request for leave to
withdraw is GRANTED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-5-