USA v. Sadler

Filing

USA v. Sadler

Doc. 0

Case: 08-40505

Document: 00511189718

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/30/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-40505 S u m m a r y Calendar July 30, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. J O D Y PAUL SADLER, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:07-CR-90-2

B e fo r e KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J o d y Paul Sadler pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with t h e intent to manufacture and distribute 500 grams or more of a substance c o n t a in in g methamphetamine or 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine a n d one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking o ffe n s e ; he received consecutive sentences of 188 months and 60 months in p r is o n , respectively. Within the plea agreement, Sadler waived his right to a p p e a l his conviction or sentence on any ground, although he reserved his right
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 08-40505

Document: 00511189718 Page: 2 No. 08-40505

Date Filed: 07/30/2010

t o challenge a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum or a claim of in e ffe c t iv e assistance affecting the validity of the waiver. On appeal, Sadler a sserts that the statutory mandatory minimum sentences for methamphetamine o ffe n s e s are unconstitutional, that the district court mistakenly believed that it w a s required to run his sentences consecutively, that the factual basis for his g u ilt y plea was insufficient, and that the judgment must be reformed to preclude t h e district court from amending it in the future to order restitution. The G o v e r n m e n t seeks to enforce the appeal waiver and has moved to dismiss the a p p e a l on this ground; however, in its appellate brief the Government concedes t h a t Sadler's challenge to the sufficiency of the factual basis supporting his c o n s p ir a c y conviction survives the waiver. See United States v. Baymon, 312 F .3 d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, the motion to dismiss is denied. S a d le r 's challenges to the statutory minimum sentences, to the imposition o f consecutive sentences, and to the reformation of the judgment are barred by t h e waiver provision. These claims do not challenge a sentence exceeding the s t a t u t o r y maximum sentence and do not present a claim of ineffective a s s is t a n c e . At rearraignment, the district court advised Sadler that he was w a iv in g his right to appeal under the plea agreement except for the a fo r e m e n t io n e d exceptions, and Sadler stated that he understood. Thus, the r e c o r d indicates that Sadler knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a p p e a l his conviction and sentence, that the waiver is valid and enforceable, and t h a t these claims are not cognizable in light of the plain language of the waiver p r o v is io n and its exceptions. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544-45 (5 t h Cir. 2005). S a d le r 's challenge to the sufficiency of the factual basis supporting the c o n s p ir a c y conviction, although reviewable on appeal, is without merit. Under F ED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(3), the district court must ensure that the factual basis is s u ffic ie n t to establish each element of the offense and demonstrate the d e fe n d a n t 's guilt. Because Sadler did not challenge the factual basis below, we 2

Case: 08-40505

Document: 00511189718 Page: 3 No. 08-40505

Date Filed: 07/30/2010

r e v ie w for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55-59 (2002). To s h o w plain error, Sadler must present a forfeited error that is clear or obvious a n d that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1 4 2 3 , 1429 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to c o r r e c t the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public r e p u t a tio n of judicial proceedings. Id. S ad ler complains that the factual basis presented at rearraignment merely t r a c k e d the language of the charging statutes and the jury instructions and p r o v id e d no information about the specific actions committed by Sadler or his c o d e fe n d a n t s . The allegation that Sadler's conduct satisfied the elements of the o ffe n s e is sufficient to support a finding by the district court "that [he] c o m m it t e d the charged criminal offense." United States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 5 0 8 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, Sadler has not shown that the lack of a detailed fa c t u a l basis at his rearraignment affected his substantial rights; he has not a lle g e d that he would not have pleaded guilty but for the absence of specific in fo r m a t io n in the factual basis. See Puckett, 129 S. Ct. at 1429; United States v . Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Consequently, the judgment of the d is t r ic t court is affirmed. A F F I R M E D ; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.

3