United States v. Smith
654 F.3d 1263
11th Cir.2011Background
- Smith, arrested in Aug. 2009, faced a 43-count indictment and pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 50g or more of cocaine base (Jun. 7, 2010).
- Plea agreement included a sentence-appeal waiver with limited exceptions and the court conducted a plea colloquy confirming the waiver was knowing and voluntary.
- PSR: total offense level 31, criminal history II; guideline range 121–151 months; statutory min 10 years, max life.
- Smith argued the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 should apply to his sentence, potentially reducing min to 5 and max to 40 years.
- At sentencing (Oct. 6, 2010), the court imposed 127 months and rejected FSA applicability, noting possible future developments; post-sentencing, the Eleventh Circuit in Rojas held FSA could apply to pre-enactment conduct but Smith was subject to a valid appeal waiver.
- The government later moved to rely on Rojas, but the court maintained the focus on the validity and effect of the appeal waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FSA applies to Smith’s sentence. | Smith argues the FSA should apply (pre-enactment conduct, post-enactment sentencing). | Government argues waiver bars review of this issue. | FSA could apply, but the valid appeal waiver bars the merits-based challenge. |
| Whether Smith’s sentence-appeal waiver is enforceable to bar this appeal. | Waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made; should bar appeal. | Waiver valid and enforceable under Rule 11; covers meritorious issues. | Waiver is valid and enforceable, and bars the appeal of the FSA issue. |
| Impact of United States v. Rojas on Smith’s case given post-enactment law. | Rojas creates merit for applying FSA. | Waiver defeats the appeal regardless of post-Rojas law. | Waiver controls; even meritorious FSA arguments are waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2005) (enforceability of appeal waivers when properly explained in plea colloquy)
- United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006) (upheld enforceability of sentence appeal waivers)
- United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2005) (rules for waivers and understanding during plea colloquy)
- United States v. Frye, 402 F.3d 1123 (11th Cir. 2005) (clarifies scope of appeal waivers)
- United States v. Rojas, 645 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2011) (holds FSA applies to pre-enactment conduct sentenced after enactment)
- United States v. Howle, 166 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 1999) (valid appeal waiver includes waiver of blatant error)