United States v. Jeffrey Michael Jenney , 250 F. App'x 917 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                FILED
    ___________________________  U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    October 10, 2007
    No. 05-16494
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    ____________________________           CLERK
    D.C. Docket No. 04-60004-CR-DTKH
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JEFFERY MICHAEL JENNEY,
    Defendant- Appellant.
    ____________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    _____________________________
    (October 10, 2007)
    Before ANDERSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and Albritton,* District
    Judge.
    PER CURIAM:
    *
    Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III, United States District Judge for the Middle District
    of Alabama, sitting by designation.
    Appellant Jenney entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty to three
    counts of a superceding indictment: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
    a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), and 846;
    conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. §§1956(a)(1)(A)(I) and
    1956(h); and obstruction of justice, §§ 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(3). As part of his plea
    agreement, he waived his right to appeal his sentence, with limited exceptions.
    Subsequently, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
    Jenney argues that the district court impermissibly participated in plea
    negotiations. He also raises several challenges to the sentence which was
    imposed. We discuss each argument in turn, and affirm the convictions and
    sentence.
    Jenney’s challenge to his guilty pleas is based on Federal Rule of Criminal
    Procedure 11(c)(1), which provides that attorneys for the government and the
    defendant may engage in plea discussions and reach a plea agreement, but that the
    court must not participate in those discussions. This rule requires a conviction to
    be set aside if the court participates in negotiations. United States v. Casallas, 
    59 F.3d 1173
    , 1177-78 (11th Cir. 1995). Where, as here, the defendant fails to object
    to a Rule 11 violation in the district court, the court reviews for plain error.
    United States v. Monroe, 
    353 F.3d 1346
    , 1349 (11th Cir. 2003).
    The district court conducted a colloquy during which Jenney's rights were
    2
    explained before accepting Jenney’s guilty pleas. Jenney does not dispute that his
    initial pleas of guilt were knowing and voluntary, but argues that during the
    sentencing hearing the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations.
    The record reflects that at no time during the sentencing hearing did Jenney
    move to withdraw his guilty pleas, and that when asked whether he wanted to
    affirm his previous pleas of guilt, Jenney responded that he did. The district court
    accepted Jenney’s confirmation of his pleas of guilty pursuant to the plea
    agreement, and sentenced Jenney in accordance with that agreement. There was
    no participation in plea negotiations by the district court; therefore, there was no
    plain error.
    Jenney has also raised sentencing issues on appeal. As part of his plea
    agreement, Jenney waived his right to appeal his sentence. None of the three
    exceptions that would have permitted an appeal of his sentence were implicated by
    the district court’s imposition of his sentence. Whether a defendant has knowingly
    and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence is a question of law that
    this court reviews de novo. United States v. Benitez-Zapata, 
    131 F.3d 1444
    , 1446
    (11th Cir. 1997). There is no dispute that Jenny knowingly and voluntarily
    waived his right to appeal as part of his initial plea agreement, which he later re-
    affirmed before the district court, and in accordance with which he was sentenced.
    Therefore, upon de novo review, this court holds that Jenney waived the grounds
    3
    for appeal of his sentence which he has raised here.
    For the foregoing reasons, Jenney’s convictions and sentence are
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-16494

Citation Numbers: 250 F. App'x 917

Judges: Albritton, Anderson, Per Curiam, Pryor

Filed Date: 10/10/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023