United States of America v. Anthony Francis Book

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY FRANCIS BOOK,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-30335
D.C. No. 4:08-CR-00051-SEH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Francis Book appeals from the 300-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine
FILED
MAR 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NC/Research 08-30335 2
with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 851. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Book contends that the district court erred by failing to treat his two prior
felony drug convictions as a single conviction for purposes of a sentence
enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), and that his overall sentence is
substantively unreasonable. We decline to reach these contentions because Book
pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which he knowingly and voluntarily
waived his right to appeal the sentence. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621,
623-24 (9th Cir. 2007).
Book contends that his appeal waiver is inapplicable because the district
court’s failure to treat his two prior felony drug convictions as a single conviction
resulted in a disproportionate sentence that violates the “cruel and unusual
punishment” clause of the Eighth Amendment. This contention fails. Although an
appeal waiver will not apply if the sentence violates the Constitution, see id. at
624, Book’s sentence is well below the maximum term allowed and is not “so
‘grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime’ as to shock our sense of
justice.” See United States v. Cupa-Guillen, 34 F.3d 860, 864 (9th Cir. 1994).
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --