United States v. Paula Pudil, No. 14-2833 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Where the district court granted Pudil habeas relief (because her attorney failed to file a notice of appeal following her conviction) and then imposed a below-guidelines sentence at her resentencing, Pudil's appeal arguing she was entitled to de novo resentencing was within the scope of her appeal waiver because she agreed to waive any challenge to her sentence unless it was greater than the maximum recommended by the Guidelines.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2833 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Paula Jean Pudil lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo ____________ Submitted: March 12, 2015 Filed: April 16, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges, and WHITE,1 District Judge. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. Paula Jean Pudil appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court2 at resentencing following a successful motion to vacate her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal. Pudil pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). In her written plea agreement, Pudil waived her right to challenge her sentence, unless the district court imposed a sentence greater than the maximum recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (Guidelines). In exchange, the government agreed to move under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) for a downward departure from the 240-month mandatory minimum sentence required by statute. Pudil’s advisory Guidelines sentence was 240 months—the statutory mandatory minimum—and the district court imposed a 138-month sentence. Pudil’s attorney did not file a notice of appeal. Pudil later moved to vacate her sentence under § 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that she had asked her attorney to file an appeal. The district court granted Pudil’s motion, vacated her sentence, and resentenced Pudil to 138 months’ imprisonment, stating that it had “no legal authority to impose any sentence other than the sentence that [it] previously imposed.” Pudil appeals, arguing that she was entitled to de novo resentencing. Pudil’s appeal, however, falls within the scope of the plea waiver because it constitutes a challenge to the below-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court. Pudil does not argue that she failed to knowingly and voluntarily enter into the appeal waiver, and we conclude that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92, 894 (8th Cir. 2003) (en 2 The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. -2- banc) (holding appeal waiver enforceable when the defendant did “not claim that he failed to enter into an appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily” and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). The appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
