Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
MAY 29 2002
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 02-8000
(D.C. No. 01-CR-043-1B)
(District of Wyoming)
Defendant - Appellant.
-2-
The United States further notes that this court honors such waivers, as long as the
plea was knowing and voluntary. See Rubio, 231 F.3d at 712. The United States
then undertakes a thorough exposition of the plea proceedings, demonstrating that
Thomas entered the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily. Thomas did not
file a reply brief and, hence, does not contest the United States assertion that he
knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and that the agreement
waives his right to bring the present appeal. Nevertheless, in an abundance of
caution, this court has undertaken a detailed review of the entire record in this
case to verify that Thomas plea was knowing and voluntary. See id. (We review
the question of whether the plea was knowing and voluntary de novo.).
Pursuant to the plea agreement, Thomas appeared in court on September 26,
2001, to formally enter his plea. As the hearing commenced, Thomas counsel
began by noting for the record that he was going to have Thomas review the plea
agreement to make sure that it was the same document that he had signed
previously. After that process was complete, the court called the case and the
governments attorney orally described the salient provisions of the agreement,
including in particular the fact that it required Thomas to waive the right to
appeal his sentence. At that same time, the governments attorney highlighted
that the principal sentencing issue would likely be the applicability of
2D1.1(d)(1). The district court then generally discussed the terms of the plea
-3-
agreement and the nature of the charge set out in the indictment. At that point,
the district court placed Thomas under oath and engaged in the following
colloquy:
plea?
Following this colloquy, Thomas established a more specific factual basis for the
charge to which he was pleading guilty. Then, based on the foregoing, the district
court concluded that Thomas plea was knowing and voluntary and that there
existed a sufficient factual basis to support it. The district court, therefore,
accepted the guilty plea and directed that sentencing proceedings commence.
The record, as set out above, makes clear that Thomas knowingly and
voluntarily entered into the plea agreement, which contains a valid waiver-of-
-4-
appeal provision. Therefore, a valid plea agreement exists and Thomas is bound
by its terms. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-5-