Integral components of these agreements are appeal waivers. The following waiver provision is an example used in typical plea agreements:“The defendant is aware that 18 U.S.C. § 3742 affords a defendant the right to appeal the sentence imposed. Acknowledging all this, the defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal any sentence within the maximum provided in the statute(s) of conviction (or the manner in which that sentence was determined) on the grounds set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742 or on any ground whatever, in exchange for the concessions made by the United States in this plea agreement.

The Court, 6-2 with Gorsuch not participating, affirmed. The majority held that under 18 USC 3742(a) and rule of Appellate Procedure 4, notices of appeal can only be effectively field after the district court has decided the issue to be appealed, Manrique only filed a notice of appeal after the original sentence not an additional one after restitution was ordered and because the requirement for an additional notice of appeal is at least a mandatory claim processing rule the government’s objection triggered the duty of the 11th Circuit to dismiss. It rejected Manrique’s arguments holding Court precedent recognizes that original sentences and later restitution orders are separate final judgments for appellate purposes, that Rule 4(b)(2) does not apply as the appeal here was filed months before the restitution order and harmless error analysis does not apply to claim processing rules.

Here, these factors and the past two decades of appellate practice in cases involving departures from the Guidelines imply a familiar and practical standard of review: review for “unreasonable[ness].” See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §3742(e)(3) (1994 ed.).

The Government opposed her request, and the District Court denied it. In vacating the sentence, the Ninth Circuit took jurisdiction under 18 U.S. C. 3742; noted that the Constitution requires prosecutors to make certain impeachment information available to a defendant before trial; decided that this obligation entitles defendants to the information before they enter into a plea agreement; ruled that the Constitution prohibits defendants from waiving their right to the information; and held that the fast track agreement was unlawful because it insisted upon such a waiver. Held: 1.

While all options are being explored and "tech support" promising to have had the problem fixed this weekend, Recent editions are available athttp://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/010319.htmhttp://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/010312.htmhttp://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/010305.htmhttp://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/010219.htmhttp://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/010212.htmSubscription to the weekly is available by sending an email to karl@karlkeys.com with the word "subscribe" in the subject line. This issue is now available in unedited form at http://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/010326.htm & http://karlkeys.com/010326.htm.Supreme CourtBuford v. US(US) 18 USC 3742(e) requires appellat courts to give due deference to a district court's application of a Sentencing Guideline term to undisputed facts, such as whether an offender’s prior convictions were consolidated, and thus "related," for purposes of sentencing.Ferguson v. City of Charleston(US)The use of law enforcement to coerce pregnant women into substance abuse treatment does not justify a hospital conducting drug tests and turning the results over to law enforcement agents without the knowledge or consent of the patients.Carmona v. US Bureau of Prisons(US) A federal prisoner who defaults in pursuit of his administrative remedies will also be denied habeas review absent a showing of cause and prejudice under 28 USC 2241 even if the comity between federal and state courts rationale does not apply.US v. Dhinsa (US) Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6), which prohibits a defendant accused of killing a witness from making a hearsay objection to dead a witness' statements, is not limited to the witness' testimon