FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 13, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee.
v. No. 10-6042
(D. Ct. Nos. 5:09-CV-00728-R and
MONTE M. WHITE, 5:08-CR-00093-R-1)
(W.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Circuit Judge, TACHA, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner-appellant Monte M. White, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the denial of his petition for habeas
corpus which he brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(c), we DENY Mr. White’s application for a COA, and we
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
DISMISS his appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2008, Mr. White was charged by superseding information with
possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A). Additionally, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853, the information provided for
the forfeiture of any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained through the
commission of the above crimes.
Mr. White executed a Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty, in which he admitted that he
had committed the crimes with which he was charged and agreed to waive both his right
to appeal and to collaterally attack his conviction. Furthermore, Mr. White acknowledged
that he had decided to plead guilty and to waive certain rights knowingly and voluntarily.
On August 11, 2008, Mr. White and the government entered into a plea agreement
that contains admissions and waivers that are substantially similar to those in the Petition
to Enter Plea of Guilty. With regard to the waivers of appellate rights and the right to
collaterally attack the conviction, the plea agreement provides:
[D]efendant in exchange for the promises and concessions made by the United
States in this plea agreement, knowingly and voluntarily waives his right to:
a. Appeal or collaterally challenge his guilty plea, sentence and restitution
imposed, and any other aspect of his conviction, including but not limited to
any rulings on pretrial suppression motions or any other pretrial dispositions
of motions and issues;
b. Appeal, collaterally challenge, or move to modify under 18 U.S.C. §
-2-
3582(c)(2) or some other ground, his sentence as imposed by the Court and
the manner in which the sentence is determined, provided the sentence is
within or below the advisory guideline range determined by the Court to
apply to this case.
Similarly, the plea agreement provides that, “Defendant knowingly and voluntarily
waives any right to appeal or collaterally attack any matter in connection with the
forfeiture provided for herein.”
During the plea colloquy, Mr. White acknowledged that he understood both the
charges against him and the maximum penalties he faced, and that he had made his
decision to plead guilty voluntarily and completely of his own free choice. Furthermore,
he stated that he was satisfied with the services of his attorneys and that he believed they
had done all they could to assist him. The district court accepted Mr. White’s guilty plea
and imposed a total sentence of 185 months’ imprisonment, which was comprised of 125
months for the drug charge and 60 months for the firearms charge to be served
consecutively. Additionally, the district court ordered the immediate forfeiture of
property that had been illegally obtained by Mr. White.
On July 14, 2009, Mr. White filed the instant § 2255 petition in which he attempts
to challenge his convictions and the forfeiture of his ill-gotten property. Additionally,
Mr. White alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at all stages of his
criminal proceedings and that his counsel misled him into pleading guilty by overstating
the maximum penalties he could potentially receive if he were convicted in a jury trial.
The district court concluded that the waivers of Mr. White’s right to collaterally attack his
-3-
conviction and the forfeiture of his property are enforceable and that all of his claims are
barred by those waivers. Accordingly, the district court dismissed his petition. Mr.
White then filed a notice of appeal and applications for a COA and for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal. The district court denied both applications, and Mr. White
now seeks a COA from this court.
II. DISCUSSION
In order to appeal from the denial of a § 2255 petition, a prisoner must obtain a
COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). We will issue a COA “only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). When the
district court denies a prisoner’s petition on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this burden by
“demonstrat[ing] that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
When, as is the case here, the district court denies a § 2255 petition on procedural
grounds, however, the prisoner must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right
and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in
its procedural ruling.” Id. “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court
is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either
that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be
allowed to proceed further.” Id.
Generally, a waiver of the right to bring a collateral attack is enforceable and will
-4-
prevent a prisoner from bringing a § 2255 petition. United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d
1179, 1181 (10th Cir. 2001). Such waivers are not enforceable, however, if: (1) the
disputed collateral attack is not within the scope of the waiver; (2) the prisoner did not
knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights; or (3) the waiver would result in a
miscarriage of justice. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en
banc) (reviewing a waiver of appellate rights); see also Cockerham, 237 F.3d at 1182–83
(holding that the enforceability of a waiver of the right to bring a collateral attack is
assessed under the same standards as a waiver of appellate rights).
In his § 2255 petition, Mr. White raises multiple claims challenging the validity of
his conviction and the forfeiture of his property. Specifically, he alleges that: (1) he is
actually innocent of both charges to which he pleaded guilty; (2) he was unlawfully
prevented from obtaining bail; (3) he is the victim of selective prosecution; (4) the
government withheld exculpatory evidence during plea negotiations; and (5) his counsel
provided constitutionally deficient representation during plea negotiations.
Mr. White’s first four claims clearly fall within the scope of the broad waiver
provisions in Mr. White’s plea agreement. Furthermore, in the Petition to Enter Plea of
Guilty, the plea agreement, and during the plea colloquy, Mr. White acknowledged that
his decision to enter into the plea agreement was knowingly and voluntarily made, and
nothing in Mr. White’s application for a COA or in the record suggests otherwise. Thus,
we must determine only whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s
conclusion that enforcing the waiver provisions to bar these claims would not result in a
-5-
miscarriage of justice.
A waiver of post-conviction rights results in a miscarriage of justice and is
therefore unenforceable if: (1) the district court relied on an impermissible factor such as
race; (2) the prisoner’s counsel was ineffective in connection with the negotiation of the
plea agreement; (3) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; or (4) the waiver is
otherwise unlawful. Cockerham, 237 F.3d at 1182. Only the second of these
circumstances is potentially applicable in this case; however, Mr. White fails to
demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective.
Generally, to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel Mr. White must show
that his “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and
that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 688, 694 (1984). Because he alleges that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel in connection with the negotiation of a guilty plea, however, he must demonstrate
that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have
pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52,
59 (1985).
Mr. White’s ineffective assistance claims allege that he unwittingly entered into
the plea agreement based on his attorneys’ inaccurate representations that he faced a
potential life sentence if he proceeded to a jury trial. It is Mr. White, however, who is
mistaken as to the potential penalty he would have faced had he tried his case to a jury.
-6-
Indeed, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) clearly provides for a maximum sentence of life
imprisonment based on the amount of drugs Mr. White possessed. Accordingly, Mr.
White does not establish any error on the part of his counsel, let alone prejudice because
of his counsel’s error. Therefore, enforcing the waiver provisions in Mr. White’s plea
agreement would not result in a miscarriage of justice and the district court correctly
concluded that Mr. White’s first four claims are barred by those waiver provisions.
The district court erred, however, in concluding that Mr. White’s ineffective
assistance of counsel claims are also barred by the waivers in his plea agreement. We
have held that “‘a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the
negotiation of a plea agreement cannot be barred by the agreement itself.’” Cockerham,
237 F.3d at 1184 (quoting Jones v. United States, 167 F.3d 1142, 1145 (7th Cir. 1999)).
As discussed above, Mr. White’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims allege that he
entered into the plea agreement based on his counsel’s inaccurate advice that he could
face a life sentence if he proceeded to a jury trial. Thus, those claims are in connection
with the negotiation of the plea agreement and cannot be barred by the agreement itself.
As also shown above, however, Mr. White did not receive ineffective assistance of
counsel in connection with the negotiation of the plea agreement. Accordingly, the
district court’s conclusion that Mr. White’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are
barred by the waiver provisions in the plea agreement was harmless error.
III. CONCLUSION
All of the claims in Mr. White’s § 2255 petition, except for the ineffective
-7-
assistance claims, are barred by the waiver provisions in the plea agreement.
Furthermore, Mr. White’s ineffective assistance claims are without merit. Accordingly,
reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s denial of his § 2255 petition. For
these reasons, we DENY Mr. White’s application for a COA and DISMISS his appeal.
We also DENY his application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-8-