United States of America v. Michael David Hower

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0757n.06
No. 09-2548
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL DAVID HOWER,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
Before: MARTIN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; STEEH, District Judge.*
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Michael David Hower, appeals the sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to charges of sexual exploitation of a child and receipt of child
pornography.
Hower entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to the above two
charges in exchange for having two other charges dismissed. The district court accepted Hower’s
plea, and a presentence report was prepared. Hower’s guidelines sentence was calculated at life
imprisonment, but the statutory maximums for the two charges were thirty and twenty years,
respectively. The district court sentenced Hower to the maximum on both counts, but with only sixty
months of the second sentence to run consecutive to the first sentence, for a total of 420 months of
imprisonment.
The Honorable George Caram Steeh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District*
of Michigan, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 09-2548
- 2 -
On appeal, Hower argues that the district court erred in finding that he engaged in a pattern
of sexual abuse, which resulted in a five-level enhancement under USSG §§ 2G2.2(b)(5) and
4B1.5(b). He also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The government moves
to dismiss the appeal because Hower’s plea agreement waived his right to appeal his sentence. Hower
responds that the sentence is illegal and can therefore be appealed notwithstanding the waiver.
We review de novo the question of whether a criminal defendant waived his right to appeal.
United States v. Swanberg, 370 F.3d 622, 626 (6th Cir. 2004). Where a defendant has knowingly and
voluntarily waived his right to appeal, this court is bound by the plea agreement and will not review
a sentence except in limited circumstances. United States v. Smith, 344 F.3d 479, 483 (6th Cir. 2003).
In his plea agreement, Hower stated that he waived his right to appeal the sentence and the
manner in which the sentence was determined “on any ground whatever.” The district court
explained to Hower that appeal was waived as long as the sentence was within the statutory maximum
and was not otherwise illegal. Hower and his counsel agreed with this description of the agreement.
Hower’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to appeal is enforceable. See, e.g., United States
v. Coker, 514 F.3d 562, 573-74 (6th Cir. 2008).
Hower’s argument that his sentence is illegal is without merit, as the sentence does not exceed
the statutory maximum and is not based on any constitutionally prohibited factor, nor will any
miscarriage of justice occur if the sentence is not reviewed. See United States v. Gwinnett, 483 F.3d
200, 203 (3d Cir. 2007).
Because Hower waived his right to appeal his sentence, we need not address the merits of the
issues raised in his appellate brief. The government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.

-- 2 of 2 --