United States v. Meeks , 290 F. App'x 896 ( 2008 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0531n.06
Filed: August 28, 2008
No. 07-3063
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MICHAEL W. MEEKS, ) NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
)
Before: KENNEDY, GILMAN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant-
appellant Michael W. Meeks pled guilty to one count of receiving and distributing child pornography
and one count of possession of child pornography. Prior to his trial, the district court denied his
motion to suppress. The district court sentenced Meeks to 80 months incarceration, followed by 10
years of supervised release with standard and special conditions. He appeals the denial of his motion
to suppress, the conditions of his supervised release, and the length of his sentence as exceeding a
“mandatory sentence.” For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I.
In November 2002, a complainant in Denmark reported to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s (“FBI”) internet website that the Yahoo! group Muels_Playschooool was being used
to transmit child pornography. The complainant runs an electronic mail message (“e-mail”) service
and discovered the group while servicing the account of a client who sent and received e-mails from
the group. The complainant voluntarily provided the FBI with three compact discs that contained
more than three thousand e-mail messages from the client’s account, software to view the e-mails
and associated attachments, and instructions on how to install the software. The FBI conducted an
investigation. It determined “that the name of the group had changed more than once during the
existence of the group, but that the ListID remained constant.”1 For example, the group name
Muels_Playschooool had been changed to Muels_Playdays, but the ListID remained 4453502.
The FBI was not able to access the group directly because membership in the group was by
invitation only. It obtained a search warrant to Yahoo!, Inc., and shortly after it received the results,
Yahoo shut down the group. The FBI reviewed the evidence to identify persons in the United States
who transmitted child pornography. It obtained registration information for some members of the
group and photographs and e-mails that had been posted in the group.
One of the identified group members used the e-mail address ledbootz75@yahoo.com. On
October 26, 2002, four separate e-mails, each entitled “Our Girl Kate,” were sent to the group by
ledbootz75@yahoo.com. Each e-mail contained three images of a prepubescent female wearing an
oversized fishnet blouse which exposed her lower body. Each image also was titled, “Russian
Lolitas. Professional Series.” Each image listed an internet address, russianlolitas.net.
On November 18, 2002, ledbootz75@yahoo.com sent the group three additional e-mail
messages. One e-mail contained three images of a prepubescent female wearing an oversized shirt
and underwear that was loose enough to reveal her chest and genital areas. Each of the other two
1
A ListID is a unique number attached to a Yahoo! group.
2
e-mails contained three images of a prepubescent female wearing oversized underwear; the female
in each image was lying on her side on a blanket or lying or sitting on a blanket with her legs opened.
Each of these nine images was titled “GENJA.”
The FBI tracked the internet protocol (“IP”) address2 used by ledbootz75@yahoo.com. Level
3 Communications, a company that purchases blocks of IP addresses and resells them to other
companies that allocate individual IP addresses to individual clients, leased the IP address to SBC
Global. SBC Global, an internet service provider, assigned the IP address to Dora A. Meeks, who
had a username hootbomb@sbcglobal.net. Hootbomb@sbcglobal.net accessed the internet, logged
into the ledbootz75@yahoo.com account, and sent images of child pornography interstate through
Yahoo! services in Santa Clara, California. SBC identified the owner of the hootbomb account as
Dora A. Meeks, 65934 Endley Road, Cambridge, Ohio 43725 (“Endley residence”), telephone
number (216) 251-6824, with an enrollment date of September 10, 2002. The person who created
the ledbootz75@yahoo.com e-mail account identified himself as Jimmy Gent, Cleveland, Ohio
44102, a male carpenter born on May 19, 1979, information that was not verified prior to creation
of the account. The FBI was unable to locate a Jimmy Gent with that date of birth.
After reviewing the images and an attached affidavit, Judge James L. Graham issued a search
warrant for Dora Meeks’s residence. On June 11, 2003, the FBI executed the search warrant and
interviewed Dora Meeks. The FBI confirmed that Dora Meeks paid for the internet service but
learned that it was provided to her other residence, 10605 Manoa Avenue, Brooklyn, Ohio 44144,
2
An IP address is issued by an internet service provider and is a number assigned to a specific
transmission line such as a telephone or cable through which a computer accesses the internet.
3
(“Manoa residence”) where her son Michael Meeks resided. The FBI confirmed that the internet
account at the Manoa residence was still active.
Also on June 11, 2003, the FBI conducted surveillance on the Manoa residence and
confirmed that Michael Meeks resided there.3 On that same date, Magistrate Judge Jack B. Streepy
issued a search warrant for computer equipment at the Manoa residence. The FBI executed the
search warrant on the Manoa residence on June 11, 2003. In a basement bedroom in the residence
that contained some of Michael Meeks’s personal documents, agents found a computer monitor,
printer, scanner, and keyboard. Agents did not find a central processing unit (“CPU”) containing a
hard drive. The answering machine contained several messages from a female asking Michael
Meeks to answer the telephone because she was worried about him.
One item seized during the search was a notebook of five-by-eight-inch index cards
containing detailed notes of e-mail addresses, passwords, and names of albums containing pictures
and movies. The names of the directories and files included “Sweet Lolita Sisters,” “4yr-bj,” “Reel
Kiddy Mov_Vicky_Sucking,” “dad eats tiny,” and “4 yo cummouth.” The notebook referenced a
series of images it identified as “Genja.” It contained references to the ledbootz75@yahoo.com e-
mail account and to other e-mail addresses containing ledbootz followed by different numbers along
with passwords to these other e-mail accounts. The notebook also referred to eleven accounts on an
internet site, PhotoIsland.com, a website that provides free online photography storage for up to ten
megabytes of storage space per account. FBI Special Agent Brian Vigneaux accessed the accounts
3
Brian Vigneaux provided an affidavit along with the application for a search warrant for the
Manoa residence. The above facts were all contained in the affidavit.
4
and changed the passwords in order to secure the evidence before obtaining a search warrant – but
he did not conduct a search of the contents of the accounts.
Fifteen floppy discs were seized from the bedroom cabinet. Two discs contained a series of
32 pictures entitled “Gege” that appeared to be sexually explicit images of a young girl. The seized
notebook contained a reference to “Gege” as a series associated with one of Meeks’s e-mail
addresses.
The seized notebook also contained references to e-mail addresses and passwords where
Meeks stored pictures and movies, including Yahoo! accounts MilesBeyond_440 and
Milesbeyond_led. Although he did not conduct a search, Vigneaux accessed the accounts and
changed the passwords in order to secure the evidence. The seized notebook also listed multiple
Yahoo! e-mail addresses and accounts that did not specify whether they were Yahoo! accounts.
Many of the e-mail addresses had what appeared to be photo albums linked to them.
On June 24, 2003, Magistrate Judge Streepy issued a search warrant for ArcSoft, Inc., the
Fremont, California based internet service that controlled PhotoIsland.com. The search warrant was
for Meeks’s eleven accounts at PhotoIsland.com. That same day, Magistrate Judge Streepy issued
a search warrant to Yahoo!, Inc. for accounts associated with Michael Meeks.
In response to the search warrant, on July 9, 2003, Yahoo! provided Vigneaux with e-mail
and IP history contents of the accounts. This information showed that Meeks was the group owner4
of multiple Yahoo! groups. On August 14, 2003, Magistrate Judge Streepy issued a search warrant
4
When a user creates a Yahoo! group, that person becomes the group owner. The owner can
restrict or close group membership, invite members to join the group, ban members from joining the
group, limit accessibility to the group, and control the group’s administration.
5
to Yahoo! for the briefcase contents of the groups, including the picture files associated with the
Yahoo! group accounts.
An analysis of the floppy discs seized at Michael Meeks’s residence and 16 online accounts
revealed 765 files containing child pornography. Five files contained images of child pornography
with identified victims. At least three files depicted children being penetrated or in bondage.
An indictment charged Meeks with one count of receiving and distributing material involving
the sexual exploitation of minors (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)), one count of possession of material
involving the sexual exploitation of minors (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)), one count of receiving and
distributing child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)), and one count of possession of child
pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(5)(B)).
Meeks filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the Manoa
residence. The district court held a suppression hearing. The district court denied Meeks’s motion
to suppress. The district court clarified that it was not relying on the determinations made by Judge
Graham. The district court read the affidavit and concluded that it was sufficient to establish
probable cause. The owner of the account had been traced to Dora Meeks who told authorities that
the account was in her name but the feed went to the Manoa residence where her son resided.
Although this evidence was probably sufficient, the district court noted that authorities also
established that Michael Meeks lived at the Manoa residence. The district court concluded that the
description of the images and their titles could be viewed as pornographic. The district court stated:
And I conclude that there was probable cause for the search for all the reasons stated,
both because it’s clear cut to me that the information they received that they thought
was pertinent to the Southern District was pertinent to the Northern District and was
involved in the affidavit, and was put in the affidavit. And two, because the images
depicted were such that the magistrate was entitled to conclude for purposes of
6
deciding whether to issue a search warrant that that was pornographic activity or was
pornographic, the items depicted were pornographic in nature.
Meeks pled guilty to one count of receiving and distributing child pornography and one count
of possession of child pornography. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Meeks generally waived his
right to appeal. But he preserved the right to appeal “(a) any punishment in excess of the statutory
maximum; (b) any sentence to the extent it exceeds the maximum of the sentencing range
determined under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines in accordance with the sentencing stipulation
in this agreement, using the Criminal History Category found applicable by this Court; (c) this
court’s order, dated April 13, 2005, denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.”
The district court sentenced Meeks to 80 months incarceration, followed by 10 years of
supervised release with standard and special conditions, and ordered Meeks to pay a $200 special
assessment. Meeks filed a timely notice of appeal.
II.
A.
“The district court’s factual findings on a motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error and
its legal determinations are reviewed de novo.” United States v. Martin, 526 F.3d 926, 936 (6th Cir.
2008) (citation omitted). Whether probable cause to issue a warrant was present is also reviewed
de novo. United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 502 (6th Cir. 2007). The court reviews the evidence
“in a light most likely to support the decision of the district court.” United States v. Frazier, 423
F.3d 526, 531 (6th Cir. 2005).
The Fourth Amendment states, in relevant part, that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation. . . .” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Probable cause is
7
“a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois
v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). Whether probable cause is present is determined by examining
the totality of the circumstances “to make a practical, commonsense” determination of whether
probable cause is present. Id. We “ensure that the [judge] had a substantial basis for . . .
conclud[ing] that probable cause existed” Id. at 238-39 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “A [judge’s] determination of probable cause is afforded great deference by the reviewing
court and should only be reversed if arbitrarily made.” United States v. Johnson, 351 F.3d 254, 258
(6th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We “review the sufficiency of the
affidavit in a commonsense, rather than hypertechnical manner.” Id. (quoting United States v.
Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 479 (6th Cir. 2001)).
1.
Meeks argues that Vigneaux’s affidavit failed to allege sufficient probable cause to search
the Manoa residence. Specifically, he argues that “[t]here was nothing alleged in the affidavit which
would indicate that anything illegal or unlawful would be found at the Manoa Avenue residence.”
“For a search warrant to be valid, the place to be searched must be connected to the crime
alleged.” United States v. Wagers, 452 F.3d 534, 539 (6th Cir. 2006). The affidavit established that
ledbootz75@yahoo.com sent e-mail messages through the internet on October 26, 2002, and
November 18, 2002, that combined contained 21 images of minors engaged in sexually explicit
conduct. The affidavit established that the FBI tracked the IP address used by
ledbootz75@yahoo.com, which Level 3 Communications leased to SBC Global. SBC Global, an
internet service provider, assigned the IP address to Dora A. Meeks, who had a username
hootbomb@sbcglobal.net. It stated that hootbomb@sbcglobal.net accessed the internet, logged into
8
the ledbootz75@yahoo.com account, and sent images of child pornography interstate through
Yahoo! services. SBC identified the owner of the hootbomb account as Dora A. Meeks, 65934
Endley Road, Cambridge, Ohio 43725, telephone number (216) 251-6824, with an enrollment date
of September 10, 2002.
The affidavit also linked the Manoa residence to the investigation. It stated that on June 11,
2003, the FBI executed the search warrant on the Endley residence and interviewed Dora Meeks.
The FBI confirmed that Dora Meeks paid for the internet service but learned that it was provided to
her other residence, 10605 Manoa Avenue, Brooklyn, Ohio 44144, where her son Michael Meeks
resided. The FBI confirmed that the internet account at the Manoa residence was still active. Also
on June 11, 2003, the FBI conducted surveillance on the Manoa residence and confirmed that
Michael Meeks resided there.
In United States v. Terry, e-mail messages containing child pornography were intercepted
and traced to an AOL account, skippie4u. 522 F.3d 645, 647 (6th Cir. 2008). The account was one
of three accounts traced to the master account of Roy Terry, 10 Township Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Id. The skippie4u account was actually registered to Roy’s son, Brent Terry. Id. When a search
warrant was executed at the Township Avenue residence, investigators learned from Roy Terry that
Brent Terry lived at 16 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, where he had a computer and accessed the
skippie4u account. Id. Investigators obtained and executed a search warrant for the Walnut Street
residence. Id. Brent Terry moved to suppress evidence seized at the Walnut Street residence,
arguing that there was an insufficient nexus connecting the intercepted child pornography images
to his home computer. Id. at 648. We concluded that probable cause existed, stating that “the
district court did not err in concluding that ‘as a matter of plain common sense, if . . . a pornographic
9
image has originated or emanated from a particular individual’s email account, it logically follows
that the image is likely to be found on that individual’s computer or on storage media associated with
the computer.’” Id. We relied upon evidence that (1) the skippie4u account sent images containing
child pornography, (2) Brent Terry was the registered user of the account, (3) Brent Terry lived at
16 Walnut Street at the time that he sent the e-mails, and (4) Brent Terry had a home computer
through which he accessed the skippie4u account. Id.
As the warrant here contained the same type of evidence, the evidence is sufficient to
establish probable cause in connection with the Manoa residence. The affidavit traced the
ledbootz75@yahoo.com account and linked the IP address to the Endley residence. Dora Meeks told
investigators that the account – which investigators confirmed was active – was actually in use at
the Manoa residence, where investigators confirmed that Michael Meeks resided. This established
“a fair probability that contraband or evidence” of child pornography would be found at the Manoa
residence. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238; see also Wagers, 452 F.3d at 540 (“The evidence in our case
connecting the defendant, his computer, his IP address, and his home to the offense is considerably
stronger, particularly where the criminal activity (viewing child pornography) is much more tied to
a place of privacy, seclusion, and high-speed Internet connectivity (e.g. a home or office) than the
storing of drugs (which can take place in a car, a ditch, a hole in the ground, etc.”).5 We therefore
conclude that the affidavit established probable cause to search the Manoa residence.
5
Meeks cites several cases involving confidential informants in cases outside the child
pornography context in support of his argument that there was no probable cause to search the
Manoa residence. See, e.g., United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372, 1377-80 (6th Cir. 1996) (drugs);
United States v. Leake, 998 F.2d 1359, 1365 (6th Cir. 1993) (drugs). Here, however, there was no
such informant. While a person in Denmark notified the FBI of the Muels_Playschooool site, the
FBI conducted an investigation in order to connect Meeks to the site.
10
2.
Meeks also argues that nothing in the affidavit falls within the definition of child
pornography, including a description “of a prepubescent female ‘wearing only an oversized, fishnet
blouse thereby exposing her lower body,’” because it was not an image of a minor engaged in
sexually explicit conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256. Meeks does not cite any cases in support
of his argument.
Judge Graham reviewed the actual images, determining they were sexually explicit images
involving minors before issuing a warrant for the Endley residence. Magistrate Judge Streepy
reviewed Vigneaux’s affidavit, which included descriptions of the images and a statement that Judge
Graham had determined that they were child pornography, before determining probable cause existed
to search the Manoa residence.
In denying the motion to suppress, the district court clarified that it was not relying on the
determinations made by Judge Graham but instead read the affidavit and concluded that it was
sufficient to establish probable cause. The district court concluded that the description of the images
and their titles could be viewed as pornographic. The district court stated, in relevant part:
And I conclude that there was probable cause for the search . . . because the images
depicted were such that the magistrate was entitled to conclude for purposes of
deciding whether to issue a search warrant that that was pornographic activity or was
pornographic, the items depicted were pornographic in nature.
According to 18 U.S.C. § 2256, a minor is a person under the age of eighteen, and sexually
explicit conduct includes, among other things, “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
of any person.” Id. § 2256(1), (2)(A)(v). The descriptions of the images, along with their titles and
other information stated in the affidavit, were sufficient to establish probable cause as they described
11
lascivious images of the genitals or pubic areas of minors. For example, the email entitled “Our Girl
Kate,” contained images entitled, “Russian Lolitas. Professional Series.” A Lolita is a “seductive
adolescent girl.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Retrieved from Dictionary.com website. The use of the term “Russian Lolitas,” along with the
reference to “Our Girl Kate,” and the description of the images of a prepubescent female wearing
an oversized fishnet blouse which exposed her lower body were sufficient to establish probable cause
of child pornography. Similarly, the descriptions of a prepubescent female wearing an oversized
shirt and underwear that was loose enough to reveal her chest and genital areas and of a prepubescent
female wearing oversized underwear while either lying on her side on a blanket or lying or sitting
on a blanket with her legs opened are not poses one would expect a young girl to be in and are
suggestive of child pornography. The affidavit established probable cause that child pornography
would be found.
3.
Meeks argues that the search warrant was overbroad and did not describe the things to be
seized, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.6 The warrant was for computer-related equipment,
discs, records, and notes and diaries related to child pornography. “A search warrant must
particularly describe the things to be seized, but the description, whose specificity will vary with the
circumstances of the case, will be valid if it is as specific as the circumstances and the nature of the
activity under investigation permit.” Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 336 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal
6
Meeks asserts that “the command of the search warrant did not authorize the computer itself
to be searched or downloaded.” Given that agents did not find a central processing unit (“CPU”)
containing a hard drive during the search, this argument is moot. Furthermore, in support of this
portion of his argument, Meeks cites Warshak v. United States, which has been vacated. 490 F.3d
455 (6th Cir. 2007), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated Oct. 9, 2007.
12
quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the warrant described computer equipment and
computer-related materials, which is as specific as the circumstances allowed, given the information
investigators had. The notebook and the computer discs are within the realm of the search warrant.
To the extent Meeks argues that the search warrant did not cover the contents of the PhotoIsland.com
and Yahoo! accounts, Vigneaux accessed the accounts to change the passwords but did not peruse
their contents until he obtained separate search warrants. Meeks’s Fourth Amendment rights were
not violated.
4.
Meeks argues that the warrant infringed on his First Amendment rights because his
computer- related items were seized without a prior adversary hearing, citing Stanford v. Texas, 379
U.S. 476, 485 (1965) (“In short, what this history indispensably teaches is that the constitutional
requirement that warrants must particularly describe the ‘things to be seized’ is to be accorded the
most scrupulous exactitude when the ‘things’ are books, and the basis for their seizure is the ideas
which they contain.”). The same probable cause standard applies when the First Amendment is
implicated as applies when there is no First Amendment concern, i.e., there is no heightened
standard. New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868, 875 (1986) (“We think, and accordingly hold,
that an application for a warrant authorizing the seizure of materials presumptively protected by the
First Amendment should be evaluated under the same standard of probable cause used to review
warrant applications generally.”) Furthermore, child pornography is not protected by the First
Amendment. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 764-66 (1982). Thus, we conclude that there was
no violation of Meeks’s First Amendment rights.
5.
13
Meeks argues that information obtained during the search “was then used to obtain additional
search warrants for other services,” resulting in an illegal search that must be suppressed. To the
extent that Meeks is referring to the notebook containing user names and passwords, it was not
illegally obtained and fell within the realm of the search warrant. Thus, subsequent warrants
obtained to access PhotoIsland and Yahoo! accounts need not be suppressed.
B.
Meeks appeals the conditions of supervised release imposed and the length of his sentence.
The government argues that, pursuant to the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal these
aspects of his sentence.
“This Court reviews the question of whether a defendant waived his right to appeal his
sentence in a valid plea agreement de novo.” United States v. Murdock, 398 F.3d 491, 496 (6th Cir.
2005) (citation omitted).
“It is well settled that a defendant in a criminal case may waive his right to appeal his
sentence in a valid plea agreement.” United States v. Smith, 344 F.3d 479, 483 (6th Cir. 2003). “The
sine qua non of a valid waiver is that the defendant enter into the agreement knowingly and
voluntarily.” United States v. Fleming, 239 F.3d 761, 764 (6th Cir. 2001). A defendant “may waive
constitutional or statutory rights then in existence as well as those that courts may recognize in the
future.” United States v. Bradley, 400 F.3d 459, 463 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 862
(2005). “When a defendant waives his right to appeal his sentence in a valid plea agreement, this
Court is bound by that agreement and will not review the sentence except in limited circumstances.”
Smith, 344 F.3d at 483 (citation omitted).
14
Pursuant to the plea agreement, Meeks generally waived his right to appeal. The plea
agreement stated, in relevant part:
Defendant acknowledges having been advised by counsel of Defendant’s rights, in
limited circumstances, to appeal the conviction or sentence in this case, including the
appeal right conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and to challenge the conviction or
sentence collaterally through a post-conviction proceeding, including a proceeding
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant expressly waives those rights, except as reserved
below. Defendant reserves the right to appeal (a) any punishment in excess of the
statutory maximum; (b) any sentence to the extent it exceeds the maximum of the
sentencing range determined under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines in accordance
with the sentencing stipulation in this agreement, using the Criminal History
Category found applicable by this Court; (c) this court’s order, dated April 13, 2005,
denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Nothing in this paragraph shall
act as a bar to the Defendant perfecting any legal remedies Defendant may otherwise
have on appeal or collateral attack respecting claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel or prosecutorial misconduct.
Meeks initialed the page containing the waiver. His initials indicate that he was aware of the waiver
at the time he entered into his plea agreement. He also signed the plea agreement, which stated that
he had read the entire agreement and discussed it with his attorney. The plea agreement explicitly
explained that initialing each page indicated that Meeks “read, understood, and approved the
provisions on that page” and that he entered into the plea agreement voluntarily.
Furthermore, at his change-of-plea hearing, Meeks indicated that he had read the plea
agreement, had discussed it with his attorney, and had had his questions about it answered. At the
hearing, the government indicated that Meeks had waived his right to appeal, other than punishment
in excess of the statutory maximum and the denial of the motion to suppress. Furthermore, the
district court stated:
No Defendant can waive ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial conduct
[sic], and you did not waive your right to appeal or your right to appeal my ruling,
which denied your motion to suppress in this case. You didn’t waive that, but as Mr.
15
Mancino probably explained, you waived most of your appeal rights, including
collateral attack rights. Do you understand that?
Meeks responded, “Yes.” The district court found that Meeks’s plea of guilty was knowing and
voluntary.
In the plea agreement, Meeks stipulated that the statutory maximum sentence was 20 years
for the count of receiving and distributing child pornography with a mandatory minimum sentence
of 5 years and that the statutory maximum sentence was 10 years for possession of child
pornography. Furthermore, each count carried a maximum term of supervised release of life. He
further stipulated to special conditions of supervised release. Meeks’s sentence of 80 months
incarceration, followed by 10 years of supervised release with standard and special conditions, is not
in excess of either the statutory maximum or the sentencing range pursuant to the Sentencing
Guidelines for offense level 28 and criminal history category I (78 to 97 months). Because Meeks
voluntarily and knowingly entered into a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal, he
waived the right to appeal his sentence and the conditions of supervised release.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
16