United States v. Shawn Tremaine Hill , 284 F. App'x 614 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 26, 2008
No. 07-15060
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00008-CR-ORL-19-KRS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHAWN TREMAINE HILL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 26, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Tremaine Hill, following a guilty plea, appeals his convictions and
sentences for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
grams or more of crack cocaine, one count of possession with intent to distribute 5
or more grams of crack cocaine, and one count of possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. On appeal he
argues that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting his initial guilty plea,
and that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation
when it denied his counsel’s request to examine a codefendant at that
codefendant’s change of plea hearing. He further argues that, although the district
court did not err in sentencing him under the guidelines in effect at the time of his
sentencing, the recent amendment to the sentencing guidelines decreasing the
sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine should be used to
reduce his sentence.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
discern no reversible error.
I.
We have an obligation to review, sua sponte, our jurisdiction. United States
v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2005). Questions of jurisdiction are
reviewed de novo, id., and we lack jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from
federal magistrates. United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1352 (11th Cir.
2
2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1149 (2007); Fed.R.Crim.P. 59 (failure to file
objections with the district court waives a defendant’s right to review). Further, a
defendant’s plea of guilty forecloses all non-jurisdictional defects in that
defendant’s court proceedings. United States v. Yunis, 723 F.2d 795, 796 (11th
Cir. 1984).
Because Hill failed to appeal the magistrate judge’s decision to initially
reject his guilty plea to the district court, we lack jurisdiction to entertain his claim
of magistrate judge error. Further, because the right to confront an adverse witness
is non-jurisdictional, Hill’s unconditional guilty plea foreclosed his right to assert
this issue on appeal. Accordingly, his convictions are affirmed.
II.
We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its
application of the Guidelines to those facts de novo. United States v. Kinard, 472
F.3d 1294, 1297 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006). A defendant is to be sentenced under the
guidelines that are in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced. U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.11(a). In the event that the sentencing range upon which a defendant is
sentenced is subsequently lowered by the sentencing commission, a defendant may
move for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10. Specifically, § 3582 section provides that:
3
in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a
term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that
has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion
of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of
imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if
such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Because Hill alleges no error on the part of the district court, we affirm his
sentence. Moreover, the remedy available to Hill under the guidelines, and as
stated under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, is to move the district court for a reduction in
sentence based on the newly enacted amendment. Accordingly, Hill’s convictions
and sentences are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.1
1
Hill’s request for oral argument is denied.
4