United States v. Tineka McLaughlin
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2613
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Tineka McLaughlin pleaded guilty to bank fraud for participating in an ATM fraud scheme in North Carolina.
- Her plea agreement contained a broad waiver: she knowingly waived all rights to appeal her conviction and "whatever sentence is imposed on any ground, including any issues that relate to the establishment of the advisory Guideline range," except she reserved the right to appeal an upward departure from the applicable advisory Guideline range.
- At the plea colloquy the district court confirmed McLaughlin understood she retained only the right to appeal an upward departure. She affirmed she did.
- At sentencing the court applied a four-level role-in-the-offense enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), producing an advisory range of 15–21 months, then imposed an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1) and sentenced McLaughlin to 27 months.
- McLaughlin appealed only the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement (challenging the guideline-range calculation); the government moved to dismiss, arguing the appeal fell within her waiver. McLaughlin argued the reservation allowed her to challenge any part of the sentence because the overall sentence exceeded the guideline range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McLaughlin's plea-waiver permits appellate review of the § 3B1.1(a) role enhancement when the final sentence exceeds the advisory Guideline range | McLaughlin: reservation of the right to appeal an upward-departure sentence allows challenge to any component of that sentence (i.e., any part of "a sentence") | Government: waiver unambiguously bars appeals of issues "that relate to the establishment of the advisory Guideline range," so challenges to the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement are waived | The court dismissed the appeal: the waiver bars challenges to guideline-range calculations like the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement; the reservation permits appeals of upward departures but not collateral attacks on how the guideline range was established |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Peglera, 33 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 1994) (plea-agreement interpretation governed by contract principles)
- Goodman v. Resolution Trust Corp., 7 F.3d 1123 (4th Cir. 1993) (contract terms must be given meaning and effect)
- PCS Nitrogen Inc. v. Ashley II of Charleston LLC, 714 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2013) (ambiguity determined by examining the entire contract in context)
- United States v. Shawakha, [citation="410 F. App'x 658"] (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing appeal-waiver scope in plea agreements)