United States v. Sanchez

Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-14-2009 USA v. Sanchez Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4614 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "USA v. Sanchez" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 2040. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/2040 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-4614 ___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAVID SANCHEZ, a/k/a Alex a/k/a Alexandro Feliz Trevino David Sanchez, Appellant ___________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00114) District Judge: The Honorable William W. Caldwell ___________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 30, 2008 BEFORE: McKEE, NYGAARD, and SILER,* Circuit Judges. (Filed: January 14, 2009) ___________ *Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. OPINION OF THE COURT ___________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Appellant, David Sanchez, pleaded guilty to criminal conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute, 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. He was sentenced to 121 months of incarceration. The issue he has raised before us is whether the District Court erred when it added a two-level enhancement to his sentencing calculation because two firearms were found in the Appellant’s residence. The District Court had jurisdiction over Sanchez’ case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We have subject matter jurisdiction over Sanchez’ appeal, even though he agreed to an appellate waiver in his plea agreement. United States v. Gwinnett, 483 F.3d 200, 203 (3d Cir. 2007). However, we may refuse to exercise that jurisdiction upon a finding that the appellate waiver is valid. Id. We make a de novo determination as to the validity of Sanchez’ appellate waiver. United States v. Jackson, 523 F.3d 234, 237 (3d Cir. 2008). We will dismiss the appeal because the record conclusively demonstrates that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. We enforce an appeal waiver if such a waiver is entered knowingly and voluntarily, unless enforcement of the waiver would work a miscarriage of justice. The District Court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N), which required it to “inform the defendant 2 of, and determine that the defendant understands [. . .] the terms of any provision in a plea agreement waiving the right to appeal.” As the District Court complied with the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Appellant has alleged no miscarriage of justice, we will dismiss the appeal. 3