United States v. Mims , 180 F. App'x 372 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-12-2006
USA v. Mims
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1943
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Mims" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1120.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1120
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-1943
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
BERNIE MIMS,
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00627-1)
Chief District Judge: The Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 25, 2006
BEFORE: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.,
and YOHN,* District Judge.
(Filed May 12, 2006)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
*Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr., Senior District Judge for the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Bernie Mims, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 2 and was sentenced to 70
months’ imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release and received at $2000 fine and a
$100 special assessment. Pursuant to his plea, Mims waived his right to appeal the
District Court’s determination of his total offense level if it were 24 or less. Mims’
sentence was based upon a total offense level of 21, clearly within the terms of his plea
agreement.
Mims’ plea agreement is valid and binding on him and us. During his Rule 11
colloquy, Mims’ confirmed under oath that he had signed the plea agreement, reviewed it
with his attorney and understood it. The record does not support any argument that the
plea was either involuntary or unknowing, or that he did not understand the nature of his
appellate waiver. He not only stated under oath that he both understood and signed the
plea in which the waiver was contained, but he also confirmed his understanding of it at
his sentencing. Hence, Mims’ waived the right to appeal his sentence. His appeal will
therefore be dismissed.1
1. Because we will dismiss Mims’ appeal we need not decide whether, absent an
effective appellate waiver, his sentence is reasonable under United States v. Booker, 463
U.S. 220 (2005).