[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
___________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
October 10, 2007
No. 05-16494
THOMAS K. KAHN
____________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 04-60004-CR-DTKH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFERY MICHAEL JENNEY,
Defendant- Appellant.
____________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_____________________________
(October 10, 2007)
Before ANDERSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and Albritton,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III, United States District Judge for the Middle District
of Alabama, sitting by designation.
Appellant Jenney entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty to three
counts of a superceding indictment: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), and 846;
conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. §§1956(a)(1)(A)(I) and
1956(h); and obstruction of justice, §§ 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3). As part of his plea
agreement, he waived his right to appeal his sentence, with limited exceptions.
Subsequently, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
Jenney argues that the district court impermissibly participated in plea
negotiations. He also raises several challenges to the sentence which was
imposed. We discuss each argument in turn, and affirm the convictions and
sentence.
Jenney’s challenge to his guilty pleas is based on Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11(c)(1), which provides that attorneys for the government and the
defendant may engage in plea discussions and reach a plea agreement, but that the
court must not participate in those discussions. This rule requires a conviction to
be set aside if the court participates in negotiations. United States v. Casallas, 59
F.3d 1173, 1177-78 (11th Cir. 1995). Where, as here, the defendant fails to object
to a Rule 11 violation in the district court, the court reviews for plain error.
United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003).
The district court conducted a colloquy during which Jenney's rights were
2
explained before accepting Jenney’s guilty pleas. Jenney does not dispute that his
initial pleas of guilt were knowing and voluntary, but argues that during the
sentencing hearing the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations.
The record reflects that at no time during the sentencing hearing did Jenney
move to withdraw his guilty pleas, and that when asked whether he wanted to
affirm his previous pleas of guilt, Jenney responded that he did. The district court
accepted Jenney’s confirmation of his pleas of guilty pursuant to the plea
agreement, and sentenced Jenney in accordance with that agreement. There was
no participation in plea negotiations by the district court; therefore, there was no
plain error.
Jenney has also raised sentencing issues on appeal. As part of his plea
agreement, Jenney waived his right to appeal his sentence. None of the three
exceptions that would have permitted an appeal of his sentence were implicated by
the district court’s imposition of his sentence. Whether a defendant has knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence is a question of law that
this court reviews de novo. United States v. Benitez-Zapata, 131 F.3d 1444, 1446
(11th Cir. 1997). There is no dispute that Jenny knowingly and voluntarily
waived his right to appeal as part of his initial plea agreement, which he later re-
affirmed before the district court, and in accordance with which he was sentenced.
Therefore, upon de novo review, this court holds that Jenney waived the grounds
3
for appeal of his sentence which he has raised here.
For the foregoing reasons, Jenney’s convictions and sentence are
AFFIRMED.
4