United States of America v. Khalil Pinkney

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 23-1465
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
*KHALIL PINKNEY,
Appellant
*Per Court Order dated 7/10/23
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00535-001)
District Judge: Honorable Wendy Beetlestone
_______________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 28, 2025
Before: SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: January 30, 2025)
_______________
OPINION**
_______________
** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Khalil Pinkney appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion to
dismiss the indictment, its denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and the
sentence it imposed. Because the District Court did not err in upholding Pinkney’s plea
and that plea included a valid appellate waiver that forecloses consideration of his
sentencing claim, we will affirm.
I. DISCUSSION1
Pinkney raises three arguments on appeal: (1) that the District Court erred in
denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea; (2) that the appellate waiver in his plea
agreement is unenforceable; and (3) that his sentence was excessive. None is persuasive.
First, once a court accepts a defendant’s guilty plea, he “is not entitled to withdraw
that plea simply at his whim.” United States v. Jones, 336 F.3d 245, 252 (3d Cir. 2003).
Instead, the defendant must carry the “substantial” burden of demonstrating a “fair and
just reason” for withdrawal. Id. (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e), recodified as Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B)). Garden-variety circumstances—like “[a] shift in defense tactics, a
change of mind, or the fear of punishment”—do not satisfy this burden. Id. (quoting
United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 811, 815 (3d Cir. 2001)). Rather, to determine if it is
satisfied, district courts consider: (1) “whether the defendant asserts his innocence”; (2)
1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We review the denial of a motion to
withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion, United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 811, 815
(3d Cir. 2001), and the validity and scope of an appellate waiver de novo, United States v.
Grimes, 739 F.3d 125, 129 (3d Cir. 2014).

-- 2 of 5 --

3
“the strength of the defendant’s reasons for withdrawing the plea”; and—if, and only if,
these first two criteria are met—(3) “whether the government would be prejudiced by the
withdrawal.” Id.; see also id. at 255.
Here, Pinkney did not satisfy any of these criteria. As to the first, he failed to
assert actual innocence. True, his motion made the conclusory assertion that “he is
innocent of the charges in this case and has contested his culpability from the outset,” but
it then proceeded only to “dispute[] he is an armed career offender” for purposes of the
Armed Career Criminal Act, App. 76, not his culpability for the § 922(a)(1)(A) or
§ 922(g)(1) charges. Without any facts supporting actual innocence, Pinkney’s argument
amounts to a “[b]ald assertion[] of innocence [that is] insufficient to permit a defendant to
withdraw his guilty plea.” Jones, 336 F.3d at 252.
Pinkney also fails to meet the second criterion. His reason for withdrawal is
merely “his sense that the government was no[t] being forthright with him” and “that the
government refused to provide him with discovery.” Opening Br. 23. But neither his
motion nor his brief substantiates these propositions, and unsupported innuendo falls far
short of the requisite “fair and just reason” for withdrawal. Jones, 336 F.3d at 252.
As Pinkney failed to meet the first two criteria, the Government “need not show
. . . prejudice” at the third, id. at 255, and the District Court properly denied his motion
for withdrawal.2
2 Pinkney also argues that the District Court should have held a hearing on his motion to
withdraw. Since he did not raise this issue in the District Court, we review for plain
error, see United States v. Brito, 979 F.3d 185, 190 (3d Cir. 2020), and Pinkney explains
neither what a hearing would have revealed nor how the District Court erred by not

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Second, because Pinkney’s guilty plea is valid, so is the appellate waiver it
contains unless Pinkney can show it is unenforceable. We consider three elements to
determine a waiver’s enforceability: (1) whether it was entered knowingly and
voluntarily; (2) whether the scope of the waiver encompasses the claims advanced on
appeal; and (3) “whether enforcing the waiver would work a miscarriage of justice.”
United States v. Goodson, 544 F.3d 529, 536 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v.
Jackson, 523 F.3d 234, 243–44 (3d Cir. 2008)).
Here, these considerations favor enforcement. While Pinkney argues that his own
failure to adhere to the plea agreement should preclude the Government from
“selective[ly] enforc[ing]” its appellate waiver, Opening Br. 16, he offers no authority for
this argument, and we reject it. Pinkney’s breach of the plea deal may have relieved the
Government of its corresponding obligation, but it has no bearing on the enforcement of
his appellate waiver. Nor would enforcement work a miscarriage of justice as the
miscarriage-of-justice exception is reserved for extraordinary cases and must “be applied
sparingly and without undue generosity,” United States v. Wilson, 429 F.3d 455, 458 (3d
Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14, 26 (1st Cir. 2001)), and the
District Court’s within-Guidelines sentence that did not exceed the statutory maximum
for his offense presents no such extraordinary circumstance.
holding one. Accordingly, we conclude the District Court did not err at all, let alone
plainly.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Finally, because the appellate waiver is enforceable and includes Pinkney’s
challenge to his sentence, we have no occasion to reach the merits of that claim or any
other.3
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
3 Even if we reached the merits of Pinkney’s waived claims, we would still affirm. First,
the District Court correctly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment because, even if
there was error in the charging document’s language, it was, at most, harmless. See
United States v. Stevenson, 832 F.3d 412, 428 (3d Cir. 2016). Second, because the
District Court recognized its authority to depart downward under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.16 and
declined to do so, we lack jurisdiction to review that “discretionary decision.” United
States v. Valentin, 118 F.4th 579, 590 (3d Cir. 2024). Finally, Pinkney’s sentence was
both procedurally and substantively reasonable. For starters, he failed to preserve his
procedural-reasonableness challenge because he did not raise it in the District Court. See
United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc). In any event,
the District Court thoroughly explained its sentence and the § 3553(a) factors, see United
States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203, 215–16 (3d Cir. 2010), and Pinkney’s contention that the
Court did not give enough weight to COVID-19 conditions does not render his sentence
substantively unreasonable, see United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 546 (3d Cir.
2007).

-- 5 of 5 --