United States v. James P. Earl

Eighth Circuit

United States v. James P. Earl

2 F. App'x 631

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 2001

Docket00-1314

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2 F. App'x 631 (United States v. James P. Earl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. James P. Earl, 2 F. App'x 631 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Earl pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court 1 sentenced him to *632 eighty-seven months imprisonment and four years supervised release. He challenges on appeal, as he did below, the application of an enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing irom a'law enforcement officer, under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2.

As part of his plea agreement, Earl waived his right to appeal his sentence unless the district court departed upward from the Sentencing Guidelines range, imposed a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum sentence, or violated law other than the Guidelines. We conclude that Earl’s waiver was knowing and voluntary.

Earl was assisted by counsel at the change-of-plea and sentencing hearings, and counsel reminded Earl of the appeal waiver when they reviewed the plea agreement at the change-of-plea hearing. See United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871 (8th Cir.1998) (appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from knowing and voluntary decision); United States v. Greger, 98 F.3d 1080, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 1996) (waiver was knowing and intelligent where it was included in plea agreement and it was discussed at change-of-plea hearing). The court’s statement at the sentencing hearing that Earl could appeal his sentence doesn’t invalidate Earl’s appeal waiver. See Michelsen, 141 F.3d at 871-872 (citations omitted).

Because Earl’s sentence was not an upward departure from the Guidelines range, did not exceed the statutory maximum sentence, and did not violate any other non-Guidelines sentencing law, we enforce his promise not to appeal by dismissing his appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

James Earl pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court 1 sentenced him to *632 eighty-seven months imprisonment and four years supervised release. He challenges on appeal, as he did below, the application of an enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing irom a'law enforcement officer, under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2.

As part of his plea agreement, Earl waived his right to appeal his sentence unless the district court departed upward from the Sentencing Guidelines range, imposed a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum sentence, or violated law other than the Guidelines. We conclude that Earl’s waiver was knowing and voluntary.

Earl was assisted by counsel at the change-of-plea and sentencing hearings, and counsel reminded Earl of the appeal waiver when they reviewed the plea agreement at the change-of-plea hearing. See United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871 (8th Cir.1998) (appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from knowing and voluntary decision); United States v. Greger, 98 F.3d 1080, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 1996) (waiver was knowing and intelligent where it was included in plea agreement and it was discussed at change-of-plea hearing). The court’s statement at the sentencing hearing that Earl could appeal his sentence doesn’t invalidate Earl’s appeal waiver. See Michelsen, 141 F.3d at 871-872 (citations omitted).

Because Earl’s sentence was not an upward departure from the Guidelines range, did not exceed the statutory maximum sentence, and did not violate any other non-Guidelines sentencing law, we enforce his promise not to appeal by dismissing his appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. App'x 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-p-earl-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack