United States v. Stanley Lubkin

Lubkin · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 4, 2024 · No. No. 23-4190

Summary

This published opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismisses an appeal by Stanley Lubkin, who pleaded guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Lubkin challenged his sentence as an armed career criminal under the ACCA, but the court enforced his valid appeal waiver included in his plea agreement. The court held that claims of legal error regarding sentencing enhancements do not circumvent such waivers unless the imposed sentence exceeds the statutory maximum.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
J. Harvie Wilkinson III; Julius N. Richardson; Heytens
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
December 4, 2024
Docket number
No. 23-4190
Procedural posture
Appeal from a federal criminal judgment and sentence following a guilty plea. The defendant challenged his classification as an armed career criminal and the resulting sentence, but the government moved to enforce the appeal waiver in the plea agreement.
Standard of review
The validity and effect of an appeal waiver are reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Parties
Stanley Ray Lubkin v. United States of America
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

appellate procedureplea bargainingsentencingcriminal procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Federal criminal lawCriminal appellate procedurePlea agreementsSentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Lubkin's appeal waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
  2. Whether Lubkin's challenge to his ACCA sentencing enhancement fell within the scope of the appeal waiver.
  3. Whether an allegedly erroneous ACCA enhancement makes a sentence illegal and permits an appeal notwithstanding a valid appeal waiver.

Holdings

  1. The appeal waiver was valid because Lubkin knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily agreed to it.
  2. The waiver covered Lubkin's direct appeal challenging his sentence and was enforceable because none of the waiver's textual exceptions applied.
  3. An allegedly erroneous application of an otherwise valid ACCA provision does not make the resulting sentence illegal or permit the defendant to circumvent a valid appeal waiver.

Key quotations

To have teeth, an appeal waiver must assume some risk of error. (at 13)
Because Lubkin is now “attempting to do exactly what the appeal waiver forbids,” we dismiss his appeal. Bargains are something that both sides must keep. (at 16)

Factual background

After a December 2018 confrontation with police, Lubkin was found in a stolen vehicle possessing a pistol. He pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon after agreeing to waive his right to challenge his conviction and sentence in direct appeal and post-conviction proceedings, subject to three exceptions. The district court found that three prior South Carolina convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine were serious drug offenses under the ACCA and sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

Procedural history

A federal grand jury charged Lubkin with felon-in-possession, carjacking, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Under a negotiated plea agreement, Lubkin pleaded guilty to the felon-in-possession count, and the government dismissed or declined to pursue the other charges and certain sentencing enhancements. The district court determined that three prior South Carolina methamphetamine-manufacturing convictions qualified as ACCA predicate offenses and imposed the 15-year mandatory minimum. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal because the waiver was knowing and voluntary and covered the sentencing challenge.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…