United States v. Sanchez , 306 F. App'x 797 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-14-2009
USA v. Sanchez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4614
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Sanchez" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 2040.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/2040
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4614
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID SANCHEZ, a/k/a Alex
a/k/a Alexandro Feliz Trevino
David Sanchez, Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00114)
District Judge: The Honorable William W. Caldwell
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 30, 2008
BEFORE: McKEE, NYGAARD, and SILER,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: January 14, 2009)
___________
*Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, David Sanchez, pleaded guilty to criminal conspiracy to distribute and
possess with the intent to distribute, 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. He was
sentenced to 121 months of incarceration. The issue he has raised before us is whether
the District Court erred when it added a two-level enhancement to his sentencing
calculation because two firearms were found in the Appellant’s residence. The District
Court had jurisdiction over Sanchez’ case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We have subject
matter jurisdiction over Sanchez’ appeal, even though he agreed to an appellate waiver in
his plea agreement. United States v. Gwinnett, 483 F.3d 200, 203 (3d Cir. 2007).
However, we may refuse to exercise that jurisdiction upon a finding that the appellate
waiver is valid. Id. We make a de novo determination as to the validity of Sanchez’
appellate waiver. United States v. Jackson, 523 F.3d 234, 237 (3d Cir. 2008).
We will dismiss the appeal because the record conclusively demonstrates that
Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. We enforce
an appeal waiver if such a waiver is entered knowingly and voluntarily, unless
enforcement of the waiver would work a miscarriage of justice. The District Court
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N), which required it to “inform the defendant
2
of, and determine that the defendant understands [. . .] the terms of any provision in a plea
agreement waiving the right to appeal.” As the District Court complied with the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and the Appellant has alleged no miscarriage of justice, we will
dismiss the appeal.
3