F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 5, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 04-2176
v. (District of New Mexico)
(D.C. No. CR-04-537-RB)
JOHNNY LEE DAWSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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.
Defendant-appellant Johnny Lee Dawson entered into a written plea
agreement in which he admitted to conspiracy to distribute and distribution of less
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
than five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(C), 846, and 860(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court accepted the
sentencing range recommended by the presentence report (“PSR”) and sentenced
Dawson to 188 months’ imprisonment. 1 Dawson timely appealed, and defense
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
moved to withdraw. After receiving a copy of counsel’s Anders brief and motion
to withdraw, Dawson filed a pro se brief arguing the merits of his claims. 2 See id.
at 744. The government declined to file a response. Upon review of the parties’
arguments and the entire record on appeal, we conclude that Dawson has waived
his right to challenge his sentence on appeal. Consequently, exercising
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court grants counsel leave to
withdraw and dismisses the appeal.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.
Ct. 2531 (2004), Dawson argues that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were
violated because his prior convictions, used to enhance his sentence, were not
1
Under the career offender provisions of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”), Dawson’s base offense level was thirty-four. U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1(b). A three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility was applied,
id. § 3E1.1, producing an adjusted offense level of thirty-one. Based on this
adjusted offense level and Dawson’s criminal history category VI status, id.
§ 4B1.1(b), the PSR recommended a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months.
2
Dawson’s response included a motion for appointment of new counsel
which is hereby denied.
-2-
charged in the indictment filed by the government, proven to a jury, or admitted
by Dawson. In his plea agreement, however, Dawson specifically waived his
right to appeal his sentence. 3 Despite this waiver, defense counsel raised an
objection under Blakely at Dawson’s sentencing and the district court indicated
that the issue would be preserved for appellate review. When the government
objected, the court responded by saying:
I think that [Dawson] has [preserved the issue] simply by raising
[Blakely], because at the time the plea agreement was entered into,
Blakely had not been decided. So that is an after-the-fact
proposition. And I don’t think anybody can waive anything that they
didn’t know that they had knowingly and intelligently. And I would
hope the Government would not take that position in the event that
the issue did come up. If Blakely had been decided prior to that and
he gave it away, that’s one thing. But I’m not sure anybody could
have anticipated Blakely or the lineup in the five votes, frankly. So
3
The plea agreement, which was accepted by the district court prior to
sentencing, states:
The defendant is aware that Title 18, United States Code, § 3742
affords a defendant the right to appeal the sentence imposed.
Acknowledging that, the defendant knowingly waives the right to
appeal any sentence within the applicable guideline range as
determined by the Court after resolution of any objections by either
party to the presentence report to be prepared in this case, and the
defendant specifically agrees not to appeal the determination of the
Court in resolving any contested sentencing factor. In other words,
the defendant waives the right to appeal the sentence imposed in this
case except to the extent, if any, that the Court may depart upwards
from the applicable sentencing guideline range as determined by the
Court.
-3-
I’m just telling you that as far as I am concerned here, you have
raised the issue . . . .
Generally, this court “enforce[s] plea agreements and their concomitant
waivers of appellate rights.” United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1318 (10th
Cir. 2004) (en banc). A waiver of the right to appeal will be enforced if (1) the
appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, (2) the waiver was knowing and
voluntary, and (3) enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of
justice. Id. at 1325. A miscarriage of justice occurs when (1) the district court
relied on an impermissible factor, such as race, (2) defense counsel provided
ineffective assistance, (3) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, or (4) the
waiver is otherwise unlawful. Id. at 1327.
The waiver of appellate rights in Dawson’s plea agreement contains broad
language, excepting only a challenge to an upward departure. Because Dawson’s
Blakely challenge does not relate to an upward departure, there is no question that
this appeal is within the scope of the appellate waiver. Cf. United States v.
Green, 405 F.3d 1180, 1189-90 (10th Cir. 2005).
As evidenced by the language of the plea agreement stating that the plea
was “freely and voluntarily made,” Dawson’s waiver of his appellate rights was
knowing and voluntary. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. Although the transcript of
the change of plea hearing is not in the record on appeal, there is nothing in the
record to suggest the waiver was not made knowingly and voluntarily. See United
-4-
States v. Atterberry, 144 F.3d 1299, 1300 (10th Cir. 1998). Additionally, Dawson
never moved to withdraw his plea and does not now assert that his plea was not
knowing and voluntary. Contrary to the suggestion of the district court, the
Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely and subsequently in United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), have no effect on the voluntary and knowing
nature of the waiver. See Green, 405 F.3d at 1190-91.
Finally, enforcing the appellate waiver in the present case does not result in
a miscarriage of justice. Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327. In imposing the sentence, the
district court did not rely on an impermissible factor, nor is there any suggestion
of ineffective assistance of counsel. See id. Dawson’s sentence also does not
exceed the statutory maximum. See Green, 405 F.3d at 1191-94 (concluding that
Booker does not affect the meaning of “statutory maximum” for purposes of
enforcing appellate waivers). 4 Nor does this court see any reason why Dawson’s
appellate waiver is unlawful. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1144-
45 (10th Cir. 2005) (observing that change in law wrought by Booker does not
render an appeal waiver “unlawful”).
The district court’s statements that Dawson could appeal his sentence under
Blakely do not modify or override the waiver of the right to appeal contained in
4
The maximum statutory penalty to which Dawson was subject was forty
years. See 18 U.S.C. § 860(a).
-5-
Dawson’s plea agreement. See United States v. Black, 201 F.3d 1296, 1302-03
(10th Cir. 2000). Indeed, absent exceptional circumstances, once an agreement is
accepted by the district court, the court lacks the authority to modify the terms of
the plea agreement. Id. at 1303. There are no such circumstances in the present
situation. Accordingly, because Dawson effectively waived his right to appeal his
sentence, the appeal is DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-6-