NOT PRECEDENTIAL
U
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______
No. 11-3221
________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DANIEL M. FURESZ,
Appellant
________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 3-10-cr-00398-001)
District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
_______
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 18, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, RENDELL, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
U
(Filed: September 25, 2012)
________
OPINION
_______
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Daniel Furesz pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to two counts of
being a felon in knowing possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Furesz’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was denied by the District Court. He was
subsequently sentenced to seventy months in prison. Furesz challenges the District
Court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and also argues that the seventy-
month sentence was unreasonable. 1 0F
A.
“We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for
abuse of discretion.” United States v. Siddons, 660 F.3d 699, 703 (3d Cir. 2011). A
defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason
for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). The burden for
establishing this reason is “substantial.” United States v. Jones, 336 F.3d 245, 252 (3d
Cir. 2003). In determining whether a defendant has satisfied the burden, a district court
must consider three factors: “(1) whether the defendant asserts his innocence; (2) the
strength of the defendant’s reasons for withdrawing the plea; and (3) whether the
government would be prejudiced by the withdrawal.” Id. Furesz does not argue his
innocence nor does he argue that the Government would not be prejudiced by the
withdrawal of his plea. Instead, he contends that his guilty plea was not knowing,
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
2
voluntary and intelligent because he was confused about the consequences of the plea
agreement and because he signed it under duress. We conclude that the District Court did
not abuse its discretion in determining that Furesz’s plea was knowing, voluntary and
intelligent, and accordingly refusing to permit Furesz to withdraw his guilty plea.
B.
A waiver is knowing and intelligent “if the defendant understands the nature of the
right and how it would likely apply in general in the circumstances . . .,” United States v.
Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 (2002), and it is voluntary if it represents “the expression of his
own choice.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). Furesz contends that
his waiver of a trial was flawed for several reasons: He had not completed the Rule 11
application form before the beginning of the hearing; he was initially confused about the
difference between the plea agreement and the Rule 11 form; he misunderstood the term
of imprisonment he was facing as reflected in a letter he wrote to the District Judge; he
did not believe that the Government was going to “strenuously object” to his request for a
variance; and he did not understand he was waiving his right to appeal. Appellant’s Br.
at 31. Furesz argues that his confusion was compounded by his pro se representation, an
acrimonious relationship with his stand-by attorney, and his “logic and reasoning
handicaps.” Appellant’s Br. at 33.
These arguments do not demonstrate that the District Court abused its discretion in
refusing to grant the requested withdrawal. During the plea hearing the District Court
gave Furesz a comprehensive guilty plea colloquy. It advised him of the maximum term
3
of imprisonment and the fine he faced. The Court also explained the advisory nature of
the Sentencing Guidelines and how a Guidelines sentence is calculated. Furesz
acknowledged that he understood the explanations.
In addition, the District Court questioned Furesz on his understanding of the
waiver of appeal provision in the plea agreement and concluded that Furesz understood
the waiver. At the same hearing the Government clearly reserved the right to challenge
Furesz’s contention that his criminal history was overstated. Moreover, the District
Court’s determination in the plea hearing that Furesz was “very intelligent,” “understood
the questions, . . . answered responsively,” and “entered [the] plea agreement
intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily” is supported by the Record and by the court-
appointed mental-health professional who deemed Furesz competent. App. at 85.
Finally, Furesz’s contention that he was under duress at the hearing from an implicit
threat of a higher sentence is belied by what the District Court observed as “calm and
collected” behavior. App. at 189. See also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363
(1978) (“[A]cceptance of the basic legitimacy of plea bargaining necessarily implies
rejection of any notion that a guilty plea is involuntary in a constitutional sense simply
because it is the end result of the bargaining process.”). The District Court therefore did
not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Furesz to withdraw his guilty plea.
C.
Furesz’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence is precluded
by the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We review the validity of a waiver of a
4
right to appeal de novo. See United States v. Mabry, 536 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 2008).
In his plea agreement, Furesz voluntarily waived the right to file any appeal under 18
U.S.C. § 3742 except “to appeal the sentencing court’s determination of the criminal
history category” or to challenge the imposition of a sentence outside the Guidelines
range. App. at 47. Furesz, however, argues that the District Court’s sentence was
substantively unreasonable because it was “based on a criminal history category that
vastly overstated the seriousness of Mr. Furesz’s record.” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 2.
This argument is not a challenge to the District Court’s determination of Furesz’s
criminal history category, but to the Court’s failure to grant his motion for a downward
variance. It is therefore barred by his plea agreement. Cf. United States v. Williams, 510
F.3d, 416, 425-26 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that request for departure in sentencing based
on a criminal history category that “overstated” defendant’s record violated plea
agreement that prohibited departure requests but did not stipulate to a specific criminal
history category).
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
5