NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 10-1156
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RASHAWN EUGENE BOLTON, a/k/a Shawn Jeter
Rashawn Eugene Bolton, Appellant
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 2-09-cr-00074-001)
District Judge: The Honorable Alan N. Bloch
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 21, 2010
BEFORE: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 19, 2010)
_______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Because this opinion is wholly without precedential value we write briefly for the
benefit of the parties, presuming their familiarity with the facts and procedural history of
this case. Bolton pleaded guilty to distribution and possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). The District
Court sentenced him to sixty months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release,
and a special assessment of $100. We will dismiss Bolton’s appeal of the sentence.
Bolton pleaded guilty to one count of the three-count indictment. Under the terms
of the plea agreement, absent a government appeal, Bolton waived his right to appeal the
sentence unless: “the sentence exceeds the applicable statutory limits set forth in the
United States Code,” or “the sentence unreasonably exceeds the guideline range
determined by the Court under the Sentencing Guidelines.” Plea Agreement 3, ECF No.
30. As a result of his plea, the government agreed: that it would dismiss the other two
counts of the indictment; that the amount of cocaine base involved was at least 50 grams,
but less than 150 grams; and, that the conditions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (the safety valve)
were met.
The Sentencing Guidelines range for Bolton’s offense was between fifty-seven
and seventy-one months of imprisonment. The statutory minimum was ten years of
imprisonment. Therefore, the sixty-month sentence that Bolton received was well below
the mandatory term—due to the safety valve provision—and at the low end of the
Guidelines range calculated by the District Court. It is clear that the conditions of
Bolton’s plea agreement permitting him to appeal have not been satisfied. As a result,
the focus of our review is upon the threshold issue of the validity of his appellate waiver.
2
Where a person knowingly and voluntarily waives his right to appeal, we
generally do not exercise our jurisdiction to review the merits of the appeal “unless the
result would work a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Gwinnett, 483 F.3d 200,
203 (3d Cir. 2007). Our review of the record reveals that the District Court took great
care to ensure, on the record, that Bolton was fully cognizant, both, of his right to appeal
and of the fact that he was agreeing to give up this right. He affirmatively acknowledged
that he comprehended the right and the waiver. Moreover, the District Court’s colloquy
included an examination of the voluntariness of his consent to the agreement. It correctly
concluded that Bolton acted on his own volition. We also note that Bolton’s competence
to plead guilty and to understand the agreement was never at issue. Finally, nothing in
the record supports a conclusion that our decision to dismiss Bolton’s appeal would
“work a miscarriage of justice.”1 Id.
For these reasons, we conclude that Bolton’s waiver of his right to appeal was
valid and is effective. Accordingly, we decline to exercise jurisdiction and we will
dismiss his appeal.
1
Bolton complains that the District Court treated the Sentencing Guidelines as
mandatory. Yet, the District Court affirmatively stated that the sentence would be the
same whether or not the Guidelines were mandatory. Additionally, the basis for the
sentence was clearly explained and well-reasoned. We therefore conclude that any error
was harmless and we do not find any miscarriage of justice in the District Court’s
sentence. U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 268 (2005).
3