FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 6, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 09-3076
(D.C. No. 6:04-CR-10081-MLB-1)
CARL J. HARRIS, (D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Carl J. Harris, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, has appealed the district
court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to modify his sentence.
Before this court is the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver
contained in Mr. Harris’s plea agreement. We grant the motion.
*
This panel 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. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Pursuant to a 2004 plea agreement, Mr. Harris pleaded guilty to possession
of more than fifty grams of cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to 235 months of
imprisonment, within the advisory guideline range of 188 to 235 months. His
plea agreement contains a waiver of his right to appeal and, inter alia, to modify
his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This court previously enforced this
appeal waiver in Mr. Harris’s direct appeal, finding that his appeal was within the
scope of the appeal waiver; that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his
appellate rights; and that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of
justice. United States v. Harris, No. 05-3036, slip. op. at 2-4 (10th Cir. Sep. 27,
2005) (unpublished order).
Nonetheless, after the Sentencing Guidelines were amended to lower the
base offense levels for crack offenses, 1 Mr. Harris filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion
requesting that the district court modify his sentence. The district court dismissed
his motion on the ground that Mr. Harris was sentenced as a career offender and,
1
In an “interim measure to alleviate some of [the] problems” with the
100-to-1 quantity ratio applied for crack offenses as compared to powder cocaine
offenses, the 2007 amendments to Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1 (effective
November 1, 2007) lowered the base offense levels for crack offenses by two
levels. Notice of Submission to Congress of Amendments to the Sentencing
Guidelines Effective November 1, 2007, 72 Fed. Reg. 28558, 28571-28573
(May 21, 2007). The change means that the base offense levels, which previously
were set so that the sentencing ranges fell above applicable mandatory minimum
terms of imprisonment, were reduced to include the mandatory minimums.
See id. at 28573.
-2-
thus, the amendment would not have the effect of lowering his sentence.
Mr. Harris then filed an appeal of that ruling.
On appeal, the government has now moved to enforce the § 3582(c)(2)
waiver pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004)
(en banc) (per curiam). 2 Under Hahn, we consider “(1) whether the
disputed [matter] falls within the scope of the waiver . . . ; (2) whether the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his . . . rights; and (3) whether
enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325.
Within Scope of Waiver
Mr. Harris’s plea agreement specifically states that he waived his right to
“challenge his sentence or otherwise attempt to modify or change his sentence or
manner in which it was determined in any collateral attack, including but not
limited to . . . a motion brought under Title 18, U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” Mot. to
Enforce, Attach. B (Plea Agreement), at 4. He seeks to appeal the denial of his
§ 3582(c)(2) motion to modify his sentence. Thus, his appeal is clearly within the
scope of the waiver.
2
The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion before the government
entered an appearance, thus, the government did not have an opportunity to seek
to enforce the § 3582(c)(2) waiver in the district court. Accordingly, we do not
consider the government to have waived its right to enforce the plea agreement.
Cf. United States v. Ibarra-Coronel, 517 F.3d 1218, 1221 n.3 (10th Cir. 2008)
(allowing government to raise enforcement of appeal waiver in its appellate
response brief).
-3-
Knowing and Voluntary Waiver
Mr. Harris contends his waiver was not made knowingly and voluntarily
because he did not know he was waiving the right to challenge career-offender
sentencing or a disparity in sentencing issue. He claims his attorney never
explained this to him and that he has only an eighth-grade education. In
evaluating whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary, we consider “whether
the language of the plea agreement states that the defendant entered the agreement
knowingly and voluntarily” and whether there is “an adequate Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. Mr. Harris bears the
“‘burden to present evidence from the record establishing that he did not
understand the waiver.’” Id. at 1329 (quoting United States v. Edgar, 348 F.3d
867, 872-73 (10th Cir. 2003)).
The waiver paragraph in Mr. Harris’s plea agreement specifically states that
he is waiving the right to file a § 3582(c)(2) motion and states that he entered the
waiver knowingly and voluntarily. Plea Agreement at 4. Just before the
signature block, Mr. Harris acknowledged that he had discussed the terms of the
plea agreement with his attorney; that he understood and accepted the terms free
of any threats, duress or coercion; that the agreement embodies all of the
agreements and negotiations between the parties; and that he was pleading guilty
and signing the plea agreement freely and voluntarily. Id. at 6. This language
clearly demonstrates that Mr. Harris entered the agreement, including the
-4-
§ 3582(c)(2) waiver, knowingly and voluntarily. In addition, in his Petition to
Enter a Plea of Guilty, Mr. Harris acknowledged he could be sentenced up to
40 years’ imprisonment, the maximum penalty provided by law; that the sentence
would be solely a matter within the control of the judge; that the judge would take
into account all relevant criminal conduct and criminal history, including prior
convictions; and that his guilty plea was made voluntarily. Mot. to Enforce,
Attach. C., at 3-7. Again, this language clearly demonstrates that Mr. Harris
entered the plea agreement, including the § 3582(c)(2) waiver, knowingly and
voluntarily.
During the Rule 11 colloquy, the district court confirmed with Mr. Harris
that he knew he could be sentenced to up to 40 years; the court could consider
other relevant conduct when determining the sentence; he was waiving his right to
appeal or come back later and seek to reopen his sentence, and that if the
Sentencing Commission changed the guidelines in the future in a way that would
benefit him, he was waiving his right to file a § 3582 motion to lower his
sentence; in short, that he was agreeing to “never ask any court anywhere to ever
review [his] case.” Mot. to Enforce, Attach. D, at 5, 7, 8-9. This colloquy clearly
demonstrates that Mr. Harris knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to file
a § 3582(c)(2) motion. We conclude that Mr. Harris’s waiver of his right to
bring a § 3582(c)(2) motion was knowing and voluntary.
-5-
Miscarriage of Justice
The miscarriage-of-justice prong requires Mr. Harris to show (a) his
sentence relied on an impermissible factor such as race; (b) ineffective assistance
of counsel in connection with the negotiation of the waiver rendered the waiver
invalid; (c) his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum; or (d) the waiver is
otherwise unlawful and the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 (quotation
omitted). Mr. Harris asserts that race was a factor in his sentencing because he is
an African-American who was convicted of a “crack” cocaine offense; thus,
enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. He also asserts
ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiating the waiver.
Mr. Harris argues his sentence was based on the impermissible factor of
race because the 100-to-1 quantity ratio for powder cocaine and crack cocaine,
whereby one hundred grams of powder cocaine triggers the same mandatory
penalties as one gram of crack, results in racial disparities in sentencing. We
acknowledge the serious concerns underlying this argument. The Sentencing
Commission has urged Congress to reconsider the 100-to-1 quantity ratio
established in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, indicating that, among other
reasons for amending the quantity ratio, that the ratio more greatly affects
African-Americans and creates the perception of racial disparities in sentencing.
See, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal
-6-
Sentencing Policy 102-103 (May 2002) (available at
http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/02crack/2002crackrpt.httm).
The 100-to-1 quantity ratio was imposed for a number of different reasons,
however, none of them race. See id. at 90 (listing reasons underlying the 1986
enactment of the 100-to-1 quantity ratio). We conclude that Mr. Harris’s sentence
did not “rely on” his race. Cf. United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d 1500, 1530
(10th Cir. 1995) (“We have repeatedly rejected each of the arguments necessary
to find § 2D1.1 violative of equal protection.”). The levels are applied regardless
of an offender’s race, and Mr. Harris has presented nothing to show that an
otherwise similarly-situated offender of a different race would have received a
different sentence.
Mr. Harris contends that his attorney was ineffective because he did not
explain to him that he was giving up the ability to challenge a disparity in
sentencing. Section 3582(c)(2) allows modification of sentences when the
Sentencing Commission later lowers a sentencing range. During his Rule 11
colloquy, Mr. Harris expressly told the judge that he did understand that he was
giving up the right to seek a modified sentence because of an amended Guideline,
and that he did understand he was waiving the right to file a § 3582(c)(2) motion,
even in such circumstance. Thus, the record does not reveal that counsel was
ineffective in connection with the negotiation of the waiver. There is no
-7-
indication the § 3582(c)(2) waiver is unlawful or that enforcing it would seriously
affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Accordingly, the motion to enforce plea agreement is GRANTED and the
appeal is DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-8-