U.S. v. Grinard-Henry
| Citation | 399 F.3d 1294 |
| Decision Date | 11 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-12677.,04-12677. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mauricio GRINARD-HENRY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
v.
Mauricio GRINARD-HENRY, Defendant-Appellant.
Page 1295
Linda Friedman Ramirez (Court-Appointed), Saint Petersburg, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Susan Hollis Rothstein-Youakim, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before CARNES, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
Appellant Mauricio Grinard-Henry appeals his 135-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to federal drug charges. Specifically, in his initial brief on appeal, Grinard-Henry challenged on Blakely/Apprendi grounds the district court's sentencing him based on a drug quantity greater than the amount to which he pled guilty based on its own factual findings. The government moved to dismiss Grinard-Henry's appeal based on the appeal waiver in his plea agreement, and this Court granted the government's motion and dismissed the appeal on December 23, 2004. Grinard-Henry now seeks reconsideration of the dismissal in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005). Grinard-Henry's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
A. Plea Agreement
Grinard-Henry's plea agreement acknowledged that Grinard-Henry would be sentenced in conformance with the federal sentencing guidelines; that Grinard-Henry agreed that the court had jurisdiction and authority to impose any sentence up to the statutory maximum set forth for the offense and pursuant to the sentencing guidelines; and that Grinard-Henry waived the right to appeal his sentence with certain limited exceptions. Specifically, the plea agreement stated, in relevant part, as follows:
The defendant understands and acknowledges that defendant's sentence will be determined and imposed in conformance with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and the federal sentencing guidelines. Defendant is also aware that a sentence imposed under the sentencing guidelines does not provide for parole. Knowing these facts, the defendant agrees that this Court has jurisdiction and authority to impose any sentence up to the statutory maximum set forth for the offense and pursuant to the sentencing guidelines and expressly waives the right to appeal defendant's sentence, directly or collaterally, on any ground, ... except for an upward departure by the sentencing judge, a sentence above the statutory maximum, or a sentence in violation of the law apart from the sentencing guidelines; provided, however, that if the government exercises its right to appeal the sentence imposed, as authorized
Page 1296
by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b), the defendant is released from this waiver and may appeal the sentence as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
(Emphasis added.) Thus, the plea agreement contained only four exceptions to the appeal waiver: (1) an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Blick, 04-4887.
...(6th Cir.2005) ("A valid plea agreement . . . requires knowledge of existing rights, not clairvoyance."); United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2279, ___ L.Ed.2d ___, 73 U.S.L.W. 3672 (U.S. May 16, 2005) (No. 04-9566) ("An app......
-
United States v. DiFalco, 15-14763
...only to frivolous claims, but also to difficult and debatable legal issues. Johnson, 541 F.3d at 1068 ; United States v. Grinard – Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) ; Howle, 166 F.3d at 1169. Indeed, it even “includes a waiver of the right to appeal blatant error.” Howle, 166 F.3d......
-
U.S. v. Johnson, 04-4376.
...v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634, 636-37 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Bradley, 400 F.3d 459 (6th Cir.2005); United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (11th Cir.2005); United States v. Killgo, 397 F.3d 628, 629 n. 2. (8th Cir.2005). Cf. United States v. Sahlin, 399 F.3d 27, 31 (1st C......
-
United States v. Dixon, 15-14354
...the record clearly shows that the defendant otherwise understood the full significance of the waiver." United States v. Grinard-Henry , 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Benitez-Zapata , 131 F.3d 1444, 1446 (11th Cir. 1997) ). Portela’s waiver......