Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Luckerson, 4th Cir. (2008)
United States v. Luckerson, 4th Cir. (2008)
United States v. Luckerson, 4th Cir. (2008)
No. 06-5154
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00008)
Argued:
February 1, 2008
Decided:
agreement
included
series
of
stipulations
The
related
to
to
United
2K2.1(b)(5)(2005)1.
States
Sentencing
Guideline
(U.S.S.G.)
I.
On July 5, 2005, as Luckerson was driving from Houston to New
York, a North Carolina police officer pulled him over for speeding.
After Luckerson consented to a search of his vehicle, the police
officer looked in the vehicles trunk and discovered seven unloaded
new pistols, several boxes of ammunition, and marijuana.
As a
841(a).
Luckerson
eventually
entered
into
plea
of
the
plea
agreement
contained
several
Luckersons base
Government
of
his
intent
to
plead
guilty
or
provided
10-11.)
Though
the
plea
agreement
U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(A)(2005).
3
did
not
contain
offense
i.e.,
drug
trafficking.
U.S.S.G.
2K2.1
were
located
in
the
trunk
of
his
vehicle
did
not
overruled
Luckersons
objection
to
the
four-level
enhancement, and sentenced him to 51 months imprisonment, a twoyear term of supervised release, and a $100.00 special monetary
assessment fee.
II.
We review whether Luckerson has waived his right to appeal de
novo.
See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402-03 (4th
Cir. 2000). The parties disagree over whether the plea agreements
waiver provision bars Luckerson from appealing his sentence.
interpretation
contracts.
2006).
of
plea
agreement
is
guided
by
the
law
The
of
13)(emphasis
added).
During
the
sentencing
hearing,
The
district court refused, holding that the issue was not unusual
since the parties clearly anticipated it, and in fact filed briefs
on the issue. Thus, the viability of Luckersons appeal depends on
whether the district courts decision to apply the non-stipulated
four-level
enhancement
is
inconsistent
with
the
explicit
district
court
was
not
stipulated
to
by
the
parties.
III.
Because we find that the plea agreement precludes Luckersons
appeal of the district courts sentence, we dismiss his appeal.
DISMISSED