United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Argued: January 9, 2015.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (No. 1:12-cr-00093-1).
Deborah A. Persico argued the cause for appellant. On the brief was Joseph Virgilio.
Peter S. Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Ronald C. Machen, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, Elizabeth H. Danello, and Jonathan P. Hooks, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
Before: TATEL and MILLETT, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge. OPINION filed by Senior Circuit Judge GINSBURG.
Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge:
Mark-Anthony Elisha Adams appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. We dismiss the appeal because, in his plea agreement, Adams waived his right to appeal.
A grand jury indicted Adams for having devised and carried out a scheme to defraud the United States Agency for International Development. Adams agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud in return for which the Government would move to dismiss the other 21 counts in the indictment. The agreement explained the sentence would be determined by the court and the range indicated by the United States Sentencing Guidelines was 51 to 63 months imprisonment. The parties further " agree[d] that a sentence within the applicable Guidelines Range ... would constitute a reasonable sentence," and that Adams
waive[d] the right to appeal his sentence or the manner in which it was determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, except to the extent that (a) the Court sentences [Adams] to a period of imprisonment longer than the statutory maximum, or (b) the Court departs upward from the applicable Sentencing Guideline range pursuant to the provisions of U.S.S.G. § 5K2.2 or based on a consideration of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
After Adams pleaded guilty the district court sentenced him to the minimum Guidelines term of 51 months imprisonment and to three years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay restitution.
Adams argues the district court erred in three respects. First, he contends the court erred by denying his motion to delay sentencing, filed two days before his sentencing hearing, until two doctors determined whether Adams would benefit from simultaneous organ transplants. Adams claims the information provided by the doctors would have aided the court in deciding whether any time in prison was warranted in light of Adams's ill health. Second, Adams argues the court erred during the sentencing hearing by cutting short his cross-examination of the Government's witness, who testified about the medical care Adams would receive in prison. Third, Adams argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We ...