United States v. Rassol China, 662 F. App'x 116

China and four others were indicted in D.N.J. for conspiring to distribute and distributing heroin; police announced and approached a third-floor apartment, prompting occupants to jump from a window. China injured his heels, drove toward an officer nearly striking him, and later was arrested at a hospital.
China pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that included an appellate-waiver clause; the agreement and a signed application form disclosed statutory maximum penalties, including life imprisonment.
A Presentence Report classified China as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior controlled-substance convictions; that produced an advisory Guideline range of 262–327 months. The district court sentenced China to 262 months.
Defense counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, identifying possible issues: a Rule 11 colloquy omission (failure to state maximum punishment), and an obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 not contemplated in the plea agreement.
The government conceded certain colloquy deficiencies and chose not to enforce the appellate waiver; it also noted the plea agreement itself disclosed the statutory maximum. The Third Circuit independently reviewed the record and found no nonfrivolous issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 11(b)(1)(H) omission (failure to state life maximum)	Plea colloquy failed to inform China of statutory maximum; error occurred	China aware of maximum via plea agreement and signed documents; any error was harmless under plain-error review	Omission was plain error reviewable but did not affect substantial rights; no relief warranted
Validity/enforceability of appellate-waiver	Appellate waiver possibly defective because colloquy regarding waiver was deficient	Government elected not to enforce waiver; thus waiver need not bar appellate review	Because government waived enforcement, court did not rely on waiver and reviewed issues; waiver status immaterial to disposition
Application of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 obstruction enhancement	Enhancement imposed though not part of plea agreement; arguably a breach	Even if applied, § 3C1.2 raised offense level to 32 but was superseded by career-offender table; district court determines Guidelines	Enhancement did not affect final Guideline range due to career-offender calculation; no relief granted
Procedural/substantive reasonableness of 262-month within-Guideline sentence	Counsel argued for downward variance; claimed sentencing calculation or process issues	District Court considered arguments, found within-Guideline sentence appropriate given career-offender status and facts	Sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed as neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (standards for evaluating counsel's Anders brief)
Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (scope of collateral attack after a guilty plea)
Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (standard of review for Rule 11 errors in guilty-plea colloquy)
Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
Goodson, 544 F.3d 529 (3d Cir. 2008) (effects and enforcement considerations of appellate waivers)