United States v. Johnson, 425 F. App'x 66

Johnson was convicted by judgment dated September 11, 2009 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base; sentenced to 87 months after a two-level departure.
Johnson’s plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal or collaterally attack any sentence within or less than the applicable sentencing range.
Davis was convicted by judgment dated September 8, 2009 for the same conspiracy; sentenced to 240 months after a guideline range of 240–293 months and a waiver to appeal sentences within/below the range.
Davis challenged the plea via Anders v. California; the government moved for summary affirmance; Davis filed a pro se response raising several Rule 11 and indictment concerns.
The district court conducted a Rule 11 colloquy with Davis but failed to advise on several rights (witness compelled testimony, not guilty plea, counsel at all stages, restitution, and § 3553(a) considerations).
The panel affirmed the district court’s judgments; Anders relief was granted for Smith (the defense counsel), and the government’s motion for summary affirmance in Davis’s case was granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson’s appeal waiver bars review	Johnson argues waiver is not enforceable to bar appeal of sentence.	Johnson contends the waiver is valid and bars appeal within the range.	Waiver enforceable; appeal denied.
Whether Davis’s Rule 11 silence undermines plea validity	Davis contends Rule 11 omissions render plea invalid.	The government argues any error did not affect substantial rights.	Rule 11 omissions did not affect substantial rights; plea valid.
Whether Davis’s indictment issues render conviction invalid	Davis asserts constructive amendment of the indictment.	Government argues no constructive amendment occurred; evidence supports plea.	No constructive amendment; conviction upheld.
Whether Anders counsel relief was properly granted	Davis’s counsel sought relief under Anders; Davis challenges counsel performance.	Government supports Anders relief due to lack of nonfrivolous issues on appeal.	Anders motion granted for counsel; standard satisfied.
Whether the government’s summary affirmance was proper	Davis challenges the government’s use of summary affirmance.	Government argues standard procedure applies; review is sufficient.	Summary affirmance granted.

United States v. Chen, 127 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 1997) (validity of appeal waivers in plea agreements)
United States v. Fisher, 232 F.3d 301 (2d Cir. 2000) (enforceability of appeal waivers)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 violations and impact on substantial rights)