United States of America v. RONELL SMITH aka HUB

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-3514
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RONELL SMITH
aka HUB,
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00309-2)
District Judge: The Honorable Gustave Diamond
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 30, 2009
BEFORE: SMITH, FISHER, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 10, 2009 )
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Ronell Smith appeals, arguing that the District Court erred by denying his motion
to withdraw his guilty plea which was made as part of a plea agreement. Because our
opinion is wholly without precedential value, and because the parties and the District
Court are familiar with its operative facts, we offer only an abbreviated recitation to
explain why we will dismiss this appeal.
At the plea hearing, the District Court conducted a proper colloquy with Smith,
inquiring about his understanding of the criminal charge and the applicable sentencing
range. The District Court also ensured that Smith understood that his sentence would be
given later after review of the presentence report and other documents, and that he would
not be able to appeal the sentence. The District Court then ascertained that Smith read the
plea agreement with counsel, and confirmed that the plea agreement expressed the entire
bargain between the government and himself. Smith attested that he signed the plea
agreement voluntarily, free of any coercion. After this, Smith’s attorney stated that Smith
signed the document knowingly and voluntarily. Finally, Smith declined the opportunity
to ask any further questions. After all of this, Smith pleaded guilty to the charge of
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846. The District Court later sentenced Smith as a
career offender to a term of 262 months imprisonment.
From all of this we conclude that, through his plea agreement, Smith knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. While we have jurisdiction, it has been our

-- 2 of 3 --

3
practice to refrain from exercising it except where it would result in a miscarriage of
justice. U.S. v. Shedrick, 493 F.3d 292, 297 (3d Cir. 2007). For the above stated reasons,
we will dismiss this appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --