United States v. Larry Cooney
875 F.3d 414
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Cooney pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and signed a plea agreement that included a broad appellate waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
- At sentencing the district court designated Cooney an Armed Career Criminal and imposed the 180-month ACCA mandatory minimum; Cooney had stipulated to the ACCA designation in the plea agreement.
- After Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause, Cooney filed a § 2255 motion; the Government conceded he no longer qualified as an ACCA and did not oppose relief.
- The district court vacated Cooney’s ACCA-based sentence and resentenced him to 108 months (below the 10-year statutory maximum) with three years’ supervised release.
- Cooney appealed the new sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, challenging guideline calculations, substantive reasonableness, and certain supervised-release conditions; the Government moved to dismiss based on the plea agreement’s appellate waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Cooney's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate waiver bars Cooney’s appeal after resentencing | Waiver should not be enforced because the plea’s core assumption (ACCA designation) was invalidated by Johnson | Waiver is valid and covers appeals of the incorporated sentence, including after resentencing | Waiver bars the appeal; enforceable despite change in law |
| Whether the waiver’s failure to mention "resentencing" excludes Cooney’s appeal | Omission shows waiver didn’t contemplate resentencing and thus does not cover this appeal | Waiver covers challenges to the sentence in the judgment whether from original sentencing or resentencing | Waiver covers appeals from resentencing; omission is not dispositive |
| Whether enforcing the waiver would be a "miscarriage of justice" given alleged sentencing errors | District court misapplied guidelines, overemphasized criminal history, and expressed disagreement with Johnson | The sentence complies with Johnson and statutory limits; appellate review was waived | No miscarriage of justice; waiver enforcement is proper |
| Whether the Government’s prior handling of collateral-waiver language estops enforcement of appellate waiver | Implies Government’s choice not to enforce collateral-review waiver prevents later enforcement of appellate waiver | Plea agreement separately and expressly preserved rights to enforce appellate waiver | Court rejects the implication; appellate waiver remains enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mata, 869 F.3d 640 (8th Cir.) (describing ACCA designation)
- United States v. Seizys, 864 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2017) (standards for enforcing appellate waivers)
- United States v. Aronja-Inda, 422 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2005) (plea hearing assent supports knowing waiver)
- United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2005) (change in law does not undo voluntary plea)
- United States v. Morrison, 852 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.) (enforcing waivers despite Johnson challenges)
- United States v. Bradley, 400 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2005) (waiver remains binding despite later legal changes)
- United States v. Lee, 523 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2008) (favorable change in law is risk of plea agreements)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional)
- United States v. Reynolds, 432 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2005) (no miscarriage of justice when sentence within statutory range)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (sentencing-guidelines errors not reviewable if waiver is valid)
- United States v. Martinez, 821 F.3d 984 (8th Cir.) (cited by Cooney regarding district court commentary)
- United States v. McBride, 826 F.3d 293 (6th Cir.) (distinguished because that plea lacked an appeal waiver)