United States of America v. John S. Carter

Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, Senior United States District Judge for the District*
of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-4326
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOHN S. CARTER,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 07-cr-00295)
District Judge: The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
Argued: March 23, 2009
Before: BARRY, GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, and ACKERMAN, District Judge*
(Opinion Filed: April 01, 200)
James L. Sultan, Esq. (Argued)
Charles W. Rankin, Esq.
Rankin & Sultan
151 Merrimac Street
2 Floornd
Boston, MA 02114
Counsel for Appellant

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
John J. Pease, III, Esq. (Argued)
Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq.
Office of United States Attorney
615 Chestnut Street
Suite 1250
Philadelphia, PA 19106-0000
Counsel for Appellee
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Pursuant to a plea agreement, John S. Carter pled guilty on June 4, 2007 to two
counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and one count of tax evasion, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, as charged in an information filed on May 21, 2007. The
District Court accepted his plea as knowing and voluntary pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1), and subsequently imposed a sentence which included a term
of imprisonment of 180 months.
Despite the fact that his plea agreement included a waiver of appeal, Carter now
appeals, arguing that the District Court (1) overstated the amount of loss occasioned by
his fraud pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1; and (2) erred in applying a two-level upward
adjustment for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 without a specific finding of
materiality or willfulness. The government has moved to enforce the appellate waiver
and for summary affirmance. We agree, albeit belatedly, that the waiver should be

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
enforced and the judgment of sentence affirmed.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742. See United States v. Gwinnett, 483 F.3d 200, 203 (3d Cir. 2007). We will not
exercise that jurisdiction to reach the merits of a defendant’s appeal, however, if we
conclude that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, unless
the result would work a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Goodson, 544 F.3d
529, 536 (3d Cir. 2008); Gwinnett, 483 F.3d at 203. Where, as here, a defendant has not
objected in the district court to a Rule 11 error, we review for plain error. See Goodson,
544 F.3d at 539.
We have heard extensive argument and have considered the parties’ written
submissions, including Carter’s arguments as to why his waiver of appeal should not be
enforced. At oral argument, counsel for Carter conceded that, despite the District Court’s
technical violation of Rule 11(b)(1)(N) in its colloquy with Carter, the deficient colloquy
did not affect Carter’s substantial rights “by precluding him from knowing of and
understanding the significance of the binding appellate waiver in the plea agreement.” Id.
at 540. Accordingly, Carter has failed to demonstrate plain error as to his Rule 11 claim.
See id. at 540-41. Moreover, we find no error as to any other argument raised by Carter
such that enforcement of Carter’s appellate waiver will result in a miscarriage of justice.
United States v. Corso, 549 F.3d 921, 931 (3d Cir. 2008). We will, therefore, enforce the
waiver and will not reach the merits of this appeal.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of sentence.

-- 4 of 4 --