United States v. Bacari McCarthren
13-13523
| 11th Cir. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Defendant Bacari McCarthren pled guilty in 2013 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 240 months (statutory maximum) after the district court applied the career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
- His counsel filed an Anders brief on direct appeal; this Court affirmed, but the Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Johnson v. United States.
- McCarthren now challenges the career-offender enhancement, arguing his prior Florida aggravated-battery conviction no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" post-Mathis.
- The government moved to dismiss the appeal, invoking a sentence-appeal waiver in McCarthren’s plea agreement that broadly waived appellate and collateral challenges to his sentence except in two defined situations (sentence above the guideline range or government appeal).
- The district court’s plea colloquy specifically addressed the waiver; McCarthren acknowledged understanding it. He does not argue his sentence exceeded the guideline range or that the government appealed.
- The panel concluded the waiver is valid and enforceable, found no miscarriage-of-justice exception applicable, and dismissed the appeal; it also noted binding Eleventh Circuit precedent rejecting McCarthren’s Mathis-based premise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCarthren may appeal the career-offender enhancement despite an appeal waiver | McCarthren: waiver should not bar review because enforcing it here would produce a "miscarriage of justice"—he received the statutory max due to an erroneous enhancement | Government: the plea agreement includes a valid, knowing, voluntary waiver of appellate rights that forecloses this appeal (no exception applies) | Appeal dismissed; valid appeal waiver enforced |
| Whether a post-sentencing Supreme Court decision (Mathis) that arguably undermines prior circuit law saves the appeal from the waiver | McCarthren: Mathis alters the analysis so his prior conviction no longer qualifies, creating an exceptional circumstance | Government: a later decision does not automatically except an otherwise valid waiver; prior Circuit precedent remains binding | Mathis-based claim barred by waiver; Eleventh Circuit precedent remains controlling |
| Whether a waiver can be set aside because the resulting sentence is unusually severe (statutory max) | McCarthren: receiving statutory maximum due to erroneous guideline application is an "extreme" miscarriage of justice | Government: severity alone does not nullify a knowing, voluntary waiver absent fundamental legal landmarks (e.g., sentence above statutory maximum or discriminatory factors) | No miscarriage-of-justice exception; waiver stands |
| Whether this panel may overrule prior Eleventh Circuit precedent (Turner) in light of Supreme Court cases | McCarthren: Mathis and Descamps undercut Turner | Government: panel is bound by prior Eleventh Circuit precedent; a panel cannot overrule it | Panel declines to overrule Turner; cites Golden affirming Turner remains binding |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural standards for counsel filing a no-merit brief)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (limits categorical approach to prior-conviction analysis)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Johnson does not apply to advisory Guidelines)
- United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006) (enforce waiver if knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1993) (waivers enforceable unless fundamental legal landmarks implicated)
- United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver covers difficult or debatable legal issues)
- United States v. Howle, 166 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 1999) (extreme circumstances may overcome waiver in rare cases)
- United States v. Rubbo, 396 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2005) (post-sentencing Supreme Court decisions do not automatically avoid waivers)
- Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2013) (prior Eleventh Circuit rule on categorical analysis)
- United States v. Golden, 854 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2017) (panel reaffirming Turner remains binding)
- United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 1998) (prior-precedent rule: panels bound by prior panels)