United States v. Knapper

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30528
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ISAAC KNAPPER, also known as Jerry,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CR-252-K
--------------------
December 12, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Isaac Knapper appeals his conviction following a guilty plea
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine
hydrochloride in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and
money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. He also
challenges the sentence imposed by the district court following
his conviction.
Knapper argues that the district court abused its discretion
in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. As Knapper
concedes, a defendant has no absolute right to unilaterally
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-30528
-2-
withdraw a previously entered guilty plea. United States v.
Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 1998). Knapper has never
asserted his innocence as to the underlying offenses of
conviction. Rather, he asserts that he is innocent of the facts
which form the basis for the district court’s enhancement of his
base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines due to his
leadership role in the offense. Based on a totality of the
circumstances, United States v. Badger, 925 F.2d 101, 104 (5th
Cir. 1991), the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Knapper’s motion. See United States v. Grant, 117 F.3d
788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997).
Knapper also challenges the district court’s application of
the Sentencing Guidelines and the resultant sentence. Knapper
made an informed and knowing waiver of his right to appeal except
in the case where the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory
maximum or where the sentence constituted an upward departure
from the guideline range. Because neither of those conditions
are implicated by the sentence imposed by the district court,
this court is precluded from reviewing this issue. See United
States v. Gonzalez, 259 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.