United States v. Kareem Sampson
684 F. App'x 177
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Kareem Sampson was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e); he pleaded guilty and agreed he qualified as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) based on prior Pennsylvania drug convictions.
- The plea agreement contained a broad appellate-waiver provision waiving appeals of conviction and sentence, subject to narrow exceptions.
- The District Court accepted the plea and later the plea agreement, then sentenced Sampson to the agreed mandatory minimum of 15 years under the ACCA; Sampson filed a timely appeal.
- Sampson sought to withdraw his plea and argued on appeal the record lacked identification of the specific state statutes underlying his predicate convictions, so he did not qualify for ACCA treatment.
- The Government invoked the appellate waiver; the Third Circuit evaluated whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary, its scope, and whether enforcement would produce a miscarriage of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Sampson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of appellate waiver | Waiver ineffective because plea/colloquy did not establish predicate statutes for ACCA, so sentence exceeded statutory maximum and should be reviewable | Waiver was knowing, voluntary, and covers Sampson’s challenge; plea and colloquy show he understood ACCA application and waived appeals | Waiver is valid and enforceable; appeal dismissed |
| Sufficiency of record to support ACCA designation | Record failed to identify the specific state statutes; thus no supporting evidence that prior convictions were "serious drug offenses" under ACCA | Presentence report, plea colloquy, and admitted facts show multiple PA convictions for possession with intent to deliver cocaine, which qualify as ACCA predicates | There was sufficient evidence (and Sampson stipulated) that his prior convictions qualified; in any event he had stipulated to ACCA treatment in the plea agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 523 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (defendants may knowingly and voluntarily waive appeal rights)
- United States v. Goodson, 544 F.3d 529 (3d Cir. 2008) (three-part test for waiver enforceability)
- United States v. Mabry, 536 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (need to examine plea agreement and colloquy for waiver knowingness)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (permissible sources for reviewing prior convictions for sentencing)
- United States v. Howard, 599 F.3d 269 (3d Cir. 2010) (confirming allowable records to establish prior convictions)
- United States v. Khattak, 273 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2001) (miscarriage-of-justice standard for waivers)
- United States v. Castro, 704 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2013) (insufficient-evidence exception to waiver when record is entirely devoid of proof)
- United States v. Bernard, 373 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 2004) (courts may enforce plea-stipulated sentencing terms even if sentencing factor might otherwise be contested)
- United States v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2014) (PA possession with intent to distribute cocaine qualifies as an ACCA "serious drug offense")