United States v. Robinson , 244 F. App'x 501 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-7-2007
USA v. Robinson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2372
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Robinson" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 611.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/611
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 2007 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.: 04-2372
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TROY ROBINSON
a/k/a
TROY SHABAZZ
Troy Robinson,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 02-cr-00760)
District Court: Hon. Michael M. Baylson
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 9, 2006
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, MCKEE and
STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 7, 2007)
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge
Troy Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying the habeas petition he
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which Robinson challenges the sentence that was
imposed following his negotiated guilty plea. In that plea agreement, Robinson waived
his right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence or conviction except in limited
circumstances not relevant here. As we explain, based upon that waiver, we will affirm
the district court’s order denying relief.
I.
Because we write primarily for the parties, we have no need to recite the
underlying facts or procedural history of this case except insofar as may be helpful
to our brief discussion. We apply a de novo standard of review when determining the
validity of a waiver of appellate rights. United States v. Khattak, 273 F.3d 557, 563 (3d
Cir., 2001).
In its Memorandum Opinion dated April 30, 2004, the district court explained that
all of Robinson’s claims for collateral relief, including the claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel, were barred by the terms of his plea agreement. ¶ 7 of that Agreement
provides in part as follows: “In exchange for the undertakings made by the government in
entering this plea agreement, the defendant voluntarily and expressly waives all rights to
appeal or to collaterally attack the defendant’s conviction, sentence, or any other matter
relating to this prosecution, . . ..” Notwithstanding that provision, however, ¶ 7(b) of the
Agreement allows Robinson to take a direct appeal if the government appeals or if his
sentence exceeds the statutory maximum or results from an erroneous upward departure
“from the otherwise applicable sentencing guideline range.”
Robinson’s sole allegation of error here is that the district court erred in not
determining whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary. We issued a certificate of
appealability limited to allowing Robinson to appeal the effectiveness of his trial counsel
2
for not appealing the sentence based on an allegedly erroneous upward departure under
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(3).
Robinson rests his ineffectiveness claim on his challenge to the sentencing court’s
adjustment from the base offense level of 6 under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(3). The court
increased that base level for reasons the court explained in its Memorandum in support of
the denial of Robinson’s habeas petition. See J.A. 7 at n 2. The court also increased
Robinson’s offense level another 2 levels because the offense “involved a theft from the
person of another.” Id at 7. Robinson now claims trial counsel was ineffective for not
appealing the increase, but he does not challenge the findings of fact it was based upon;
i.e. theft of the diamonds from the “person of another.” Similarly, he does not suggest that
the sentence he received exceeds the statutory maximum, and it is clear that it does not.
We have held that appellate waivers such as the one in Robinson’s plea agreement
deprives us of jurisdiction over an appeal, so long as the waiver is entered into knowingly
and voluntarily and does not work a miscarriage of justice. See Khattak, 273 F.3d at 563.
Although Robinson is collaterally attacking his sentence rather than challenging it on
direct appeal, the same considerations apply. See Jones v. United States, 167 F.3d 1142(7th Cir. 1999). Even though we spoke in terms of such agreements depriving us of
jurisdiction in Khattak, we did not dismiss the appeal there for lack of jurisdiction.
Rather, we affirmed the judgment of conviction.
In United States v. Gwinnett, 483 F.3d 200, 203 (3d Cir. 2007), we explained that,
notwithstanding some of the language in Khattak, a waiver of appellate rights does not
actually deprive us of jurisdiction, and that the fact that we affirmed in Khattak, rather
3
than dismissing the appeal suggests we actually had jurisdiction that we simply refused to
exercise. Thus, as we explained in Gwinnett, in order to enforce such waivers and ensure
that they are meaningful, “we will not exercise [our] jurisdiction. . . if we conclude that [a
defendant] knowingly and voluntarily waived [his/her] right to appeal unless the result
would work a miscarriage of justice.” Indeed, it could hardly be otherwise for an
agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant could hardly divest us of jurisdiction
bestowed by Congress.
Here, Robinson’s allegations of ineffectiveness extend to trial counsel’s purported
failure to properly explain the provisions of the plea agreement waiving the right to
appeal or collaterally attack any sentence imposed pursuant to the plea agreement.
However, the argument is refuted by the record.
As the district court noted, ¶ 7 of the plea agreement clearly explains that
Robinson is waiving his right to appeal “or collaterally attack the defendant’s conviction,
sentence, or any other matter relating to this prosecution, whether such a right to appeal
or collateral attack arises under . . . 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or any other provision of law. “
with narrow exceptions not relevant here.
Although Robinson told the sentencing court that he could not read well, defense
counsel told the court that he (counsel) had explained the plea agreement to Robinson,
including the wavier, in Robinson’s presence. Robinson confirmed that, and stated that
he understood the terms of the agreement and had no questions. In addition, the court and
the prosecutor both reiterated that Robinson was waiving his right to challenge any aspect
of the proceeding with certain narrow exceptions.
4
Robinson now asks us to ignore the record and find that the waiver was not
knowing and intelligent because the court did not explain the exact terms of the waiver
with precision in open court. However, given the colloquy, the wording of the plea
agreement, representations of defense counsel, and statements by the prosecutor as well
as Robinson, the record here is sufficient to establish that the waiver was knowing and
voluntary despite Robinson’s attempts to disavow it.
Except for Robinson’s unsupported allegations, there is nothing on this record to
suggest that Robinson’s waiver is not valid and enforceable as written. In fact, the record
establishes the contrary. On this record, we can not reverse the district court’s denial of
habeas relief without making a mockery of the waiver Robinson signed; the same kind of
waiver that we have already determined to be valid and binding when entered into
knowingly, and intelligently. See Khattak, and Gwinnett, supra. Since the record here
establishes that this waiver was knowing and intelligent, we will refrain from exercising
our jurisdiction, and affirm the district court’s order denying habeas relief based on the
terms of the plea agreement.
II.
For the reasons set forth herein, we will dismiss the appeal.
5