United States v. Bielewicz, 121208 FED3, 07-2880

Docket Nº:07-2880
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SCOTT BIELEWICZ, Appellant
Case Date:December 12, 2008
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SCOTT BIELEWICZ, Appellant

No. 07-2880

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

December 12, 2008

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on November 20, 2008

Appeal from the Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 06-cr-00044) District Judge: Honorable David Stewart Cercone

Before: FUENTES, HARDIMAN, and GARTH, Circuit Judges

OPINION

FUENTES, Circuit Judge:

Scott Bielewicz appeals from his 18-month sentence following a guilty plea for bank fraud. He was released from custody on August 9, 2008, at which time he began a four-year period of supervised release. The government contends that Bielewicz waived his right to appeal the sentencing issues he now raises and that, in any event, the District Court properly calculated his sentence and the sentence was reasonable. Because we conclude that Bielewicz knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence, we will dismiss Bielewicz's appeal.

Bielewicz is no longer incarcerated. Therefore, we must first examine whether we have jurisdiction over Bielewicz's appeal under Article III of the United States Constitution, which extends jurisdiction only to actual cases or controversies. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2; Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). In United States v. Jackson, we held that "[a] defendant who is serving a term of supervised release and challenges only his completed sentence of imprisonment must show collateral consequences" to present a live case or controversy. 523 F.3d 234, 241 (3d Cir. 2008). In Jackson, we held that collateral consequences include "the possibility of a credit for improper imprisonment against a term of supervised release." Id. Because Bielewicz argues that his sentence was unreasonably long, which could result in a credit against his term of supervised release, we conclude that this case is not moot.

We must now determine whether Bielewicz waived his right to appeal the reasonableness of his sentence by entering into his plea agreement, which contained express language that prohibits Bielewicz from appealing his sentence, with two limited exceptions. Those exceptions apply only if his sentence either exceeded the applicable statutory limits set forth in the United States Code, or if the sentence unreasonably exceeded the guideline...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP