ÿWPCÝt 4F0¢ …} ?Œ ¨ ×aèíT‚xu‘Ï4¥ß¸ü@C„ôÆjø°—t“‰9ÔU *·ZºÄ W⋧1w2° ¾i‘¸r6bá!ß— »}¦ Z÷eúäñž4e”[‰ Äï`y¾Ì!Òz£ø‰22ä½V»ºccT N‡bb˜>%ó“2×$šØGãB»œ¢>¢«õÛ”Öˆ~ñ”‰!Hl§»×`s‡Ø½¨wCKeylQ‘ìkòecŽUÇÊ û“˜ÞÐn™@Ž› t3±‰¯]0®®ºQI:¡T@i+{¾˜_¿3A†qÍ@ïfª’ŠJÖ3thûr/ÞÄ—àtÍ…ÆV*žQ”!!*׸Té—…Œ™o lÐ ÿˆ´ÂŸ’ã]±Ç—*úPaÑsÚ\§¦×a.‘@‹ v†ãÛ]Ny*þÜìò¥JÞ ë´Vì¸ÚâÉp°æRR]Boá€WÕŽ~¾ª<ÆtÄ6}oözu Z£«‰âg­”62øDa|íÁ;NWºÑ³ï‹ÈU°šI¥‹SŸR`« ѾxÑØÛïŠ{ÂRÜ­VÿSÞ€ÚGy‰`¹_¾˜¢xP¶Q†êxÉ#!þ % 0 D% 0(i‘ 0"Æ™Ï_U:.^ hw@t4´È× mÙYðbIEQfSaUNixkpãXS7«ìâ!UFÎ#p$Å„)UFI+ì+"{-UF0U:ã01ˆ3UF¦5U :ì5D&6 Bj:UF‡:YÍ:UF&=l=Û}@7XDUFFˆÕF]IUFnL´LUFµNÛûNU:ÖRU:SUFJSÛS"kWUFZÏÓZUF¢]Ûè]ÅÃaUFˆcˆcU FÎcUNdU>bdbdbdD d dUFähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähähW*i*i*iWkkkkkkkkWØmØmØmW/p/p/pW†r˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0HX(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡ (d:2”ü$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÅÔ_ÔÝ ƒ”üÿÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIndeed,€immediately€following€the€imposition€of€sentence,€theÐ ° Ðcourt€exacerbated€the€problem,€stating:€€"I€must€advise€you,€Ms.ÏTeeter,€that€you€have€a€right€to€appeal€this€sentence€if€you€wishÏto€do€so.€€Do€you€understand€that?"€€Eliciting€an€affirmativeÏresponse,€the€court€proceeded€to€explain,€in€considerable€detail,Ïthe€requirements€for€filing€an€appeal.€€At€no€time€did€the€courtÏmention€the€limitations€on€the€right€to€appeal€ostensibly€imposedÏby€the€plea€agreement.€€Throughout,€the€prosecutor€stood€mute.,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular¤}÷*Æ EÓ€DEUE  ïy‡˜*6Xê:i¢Ø+003|x "ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ OÔ_ÔÝ ƒ”üÿÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€refrain€from€prescribing€any€mandatory€language€for€suchÐ ° Ðan€inquiry€because€the€circumstances€will€vary€from€case€to€case,Ïfrom€defendant€to€defendant,€and€from€plea€agreement€to€pleaÏagreement.€€We€caution€only€that€the€court's€interrogation€shouldÏbe€specific€enough€to€confirm€the€defendant's€understanding€of€theÏwaiver€and€her€acquiescence€in€the€relinquishment€of€rights€that€itÏbetokens.- ù-øÀTABLE A nÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÝ ƒbÿÝÓ=€'èAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€have€alluded€to€this€issue€in€earlier€cases,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnitedÐ ° ÐStatesóó€v.€òòRamirezóó,€252€F.3d€516,€___€(1st€Cir.€2001)€[No.€00„2274,Ð †Ö Ðslip€op.€at€3];€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHinesóó,€196€F.3d€270,€272€(1st€Cir.Ð \¬ Ð1999);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSpringeróó,€28€F.3d€236,€237€(1st€Cir.€1994),Ð 2‚ Ðbut€we€have€yet€to€resolve€it. fÝ ƒ”ü$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€at€the€outset€that€the€sort€of€waiver€we€areÐ ° Ðdiscussing€differs€from€the€waiver€disapproved€in€òòWorcesteróó€v.Ð †Ö ÐòòCommissioneróó,€370€F.2d€713€(1st€Cir.€1966).€€There,€theÐ \¬ ÐCommissioner€sought€to€estop€the€taxpayer€by€reference€to€a€relatedÏcriminal€case.€€We€rejected€that€effort,€finding€the€criminalÏproceeding€to€have€been€tainted€because€òòtheóó€òòcourtóó€had€pressured€theÐ Þ. Ðtaxpayer„defendant€into€waiving€his€right€to€appeal€in€exchange€forÏa€lighter€sentence.€€òòId.óó€at€718€(explaining€that€"[t]he€court€wasÐ Š Ú Ðwithout€right€to€bargain€thus€with€the€defendant,€or€to€put€a€priceÐ ` ° ¤ Ðon€an€appeal").€€We€expressed€concern€that,€if€we€permitted€thisÏsort€of€plea€bargaining,€a€sentencing€court€might€abuse€its€powerÏin€order€to€avoid€appellate€review,€and€the€defendant,€in€anÏunequal€bargaining€position,€would€have€little€choice€but€to€goÏalong.€€òòId.óó€€When,€as€now,€the€agreement€is€between€the€prosecutionÐ X Ðand€the€defense€(and,€thus,€subject€to€the€independent€supervisionÏof€the€trial€court),€the€òòWorcesteróó€rationale€is€inapposite. NÔ_ÔÝ ƒ”üÿÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€have€alluded€to€this€issue€in€earlier€cases,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnitedÐ ° ÐStatesóó€v.€òòRamirezóó,€252€F.3d€516,€___€(1st€Cir.€2001)€[No.€00„2274,Ð †Ö Ðslip€op.€at€3];€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHinesóó,€196€F.3d€270,€272€(1st€Cir.Ð \¬ Ð1999);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSpringeróó,€28€F.3d€236,€237€(1st€Cir.€1994),Ð 2‚ Ðbut€we€have€yet€to€resolve€it. -Ô_ÔÝ ƒ”üÿÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€rule€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAfter€imposing€sentence€in€any€case,€the€courtÏmust€advise€the€defendant€of€any€right€toÏappeal€the€sentence,€and€of€the€right€of€aÏperson€who€is€unable€to€pay€the€cost€of€anÏappeal€to€apply€for€leave€to€appeal€in€formaÏpauperis.ò òó óЊ Ú` x` x ÐÌFed.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(5). âÝ ƒ”ü$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLess€obvious,€perhaps,€is€the€protection€against€bait„and„Ð ° Ðswitch€tactics€on€the€part€of€a€defendant€who€makes€concessions€toÏthe€government€and€then€seeks€to€keep€what€she€got€and€withdrawÏwhat€she€gave.€€In€the€last€analysis,€it€is€up€to€the€courts€toÏkeep€this€balance€steady€and€true.ÿ.Courier New Regular fÝ ƒÒ™$ÝÓ=€‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€at€the€outset€that€the€sort€of€waiver€we€areÐ ° Ðdiscussing€differs€from€the€waiver€disapproved€in€òòWorcesteróó€v.Ð †Ö ÐòòCommissioneróó,€370€F.2d€713€(1st€Cir.€1966).€€There,€theÐ \¬ ÐCommissioner€sought€to€estop€the€taxpayer€by€reference€to€a€relatedÏcriminal€case.€€We€rejected€that€effort,€finding€the€criminalÏproceeding€to€have€been€tainted€because€òòtheóó€òòcourtóó€had€pressured€theÐ Þ. Ðtaxpayer„defendant€into€waiving€his€right€to€appeal€in€exchange€forÏa€lighter€sentence.€€òòId.óó€at€718€(explaining€that€"[t]he€court€wasÐ Š Ú Ðwithout€right€to€bargain€thus€with€the€defendant,€or€to€put€a€priceÐ ` ° ‹ Ðon€an€appeal").€€We€expressed€concern€that,€if€we€permitted€thisÏsort€of€plea€bargaining,€a€sentencing€court€might€abuse€its€powerÏin€order€to€avoid€appellate€review,€and€the€defendant,€in€anÏunequal€bargaining€position,€would€have€little€choice€but€to€goÏalong.€€òòId.óó€€When,€as€now,€the€agreement€is€between€the€prosecutionÐ X Ðand€the€defense€(and,€thus,€subject€to€the€independent€supervisionÏof€the€trial€court),€the€òòWorcesteróó€rationale€is€inapposite. »Ý ƒ”ü$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔConceivably,€there€may€be€a€rare€case€in€which€relief€fromÐ ° Ðsuch€a€stipulation€would€be€justified€to€avoid€a€miscarriage€ofÏjustice€or€to€correct€a€mutual€mistake.€€But€such€cases€will€be€fewÏand€far€between,€and€the€case€at€hand€is€not€one€of€them.ÿ.Courier New Regular âÝ ƒÒ™$ÝÓ=€ ‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLess€obvious,€perhaps,€is€the€protection€against€bait„and„Ð ° Ðswitch€tactics€on€the€part€of€a€defendant€who€makes€concessions€toÏthe€government€and€then€seeks€to€keep€what€she€got€and€withdrawÏwhat€she€gave.€€In€the€last€analysis,€it€is€up€to€the€courts€toÏkeep€this€balance€steady€and€true. Ý ƒ”ü$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTo€cite€a€few€examples,€we€do€not€think€that€a€waiver€shouldÐ ° Ðbe€construed€to€bar€an€appeal€if€the€trial€court€imposes€a€sentenceÐ †Ö ¤ Ðexceeding€the€maximum€penalty€permitted€by€law,€òòBlackóó,€201€F.3d€atÐ ° Ð1301;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAttaróó,€38€F.3d€727,€729„32€(4th€Cir.€1994),Ð †Ö Ðor€one€that€violates€a€material€term€of€the€plea€agreement,òòóóÐ \¬ ÐòòMichelsenóó,€141€F.3d€at€872;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòNavarro„Ô_ÔBotelloÔ_Ôóó,€912Ð 2‚ ÐF.2d€318,€321€(9th€Cir.€1990).ÿ.Courier New Regular,†r‰AZ"Arial Regular ÷Ô_ÔÝ ƒ”üÿÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€line€with€this€aspect€of€the€agreement,€the€appellantÐ ° Ðeventually€pled€guilty€in€a€Maine€state€court€to€two€counts€ofÏfelony€murder€and€one€count€of€kidnapping.€€She€received€a€twenty„¼year€incarcerative€sentence,€to€be€served€concurrently€with€theÏsentence€previously€imposed€by€the€federal€district€court. ~Ô_ÔÝ ƒÒ™ÿÝÓ=€$‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝFinality€is€an€especially€important€consideration€inÐ ° Ðsociety's€attempt€to€administer€a€zetetick€criminal€justice€system.€ÏIts€virtues€have€been€extolled€elsewhere,€òòe.g.óó,€òòDanielsóó€v.€òòUnitedÐ \¬ ÐStatesóó,òòóó€121€S.€Ct.€1578,€1582€(2001);€òòLackawanna€County€Dist.€Atty.óóÐ 2‚ Ðv.€òòCrossóó,€121€S.€Ct.€1567,€1573„74€(2001),€and€it€would€beÐ X Ðpleonastic€to€rehearse€them€here.ÿ.Courier New Regular,†r‰AZ"Arial Regular :Ô_ÔÝ ƒÒ™ÿÝÓ=€(‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€courts€of€appeals€have€been€consentient,€we€noteÐ ° Ðthat€individual€judges€have€demurred.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð †Ö ÐòòMelanconóó,€972€F.2d€566,€570„80€(5th€Cir.€1992)€(Parker,€J.,Ð \¬ Ðconcurring);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPerezóó,€46€F.€Supp.€2d€59,€64„72€(D.Ð 2‚ ÐMass.€1999);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòJohnsonóó,€992€F.€Supp.€437,€438„40Ð X Ð(D.D.C.€1997);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòRaynoróó,€989€F.€Supp.€43,€43„49Ð Þ. Ð(D.D.C.€1997).€€Some€commentators€also€have€argued€against€theÏvalidity€of€presentence€waivers€of€appellate€rights.€€òòE.g.óó,€Jack€W.Ð Š Ú ÐCampbell€IV€&€Gregory€A.€Castanias,€òòSentencing„Appeal€Waivers:€Ð ` ° ÐRecent€Decisions€Open€the€Door€to€Reinvigorated€Challengesóó,€TheÐ 6 †  ÐChampion,€May€2000,€at€34. dÿ.Courier New Regular OÔ_ÔÝ ƒÒ™ÿÝÓ=€*‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€refrain€from€prescribing€any€mandatory€language€for€suchÐ ° Ðan€inquiry€because€the€circumstances€will€vary€from€case€to€case,Ïfrom€defendant€to€defendant,€and€from€plea€agreement€to€pleaÏagreement.€€We€caution€only€that€the€court's€interrogation€shouldÏbe€specific€enough€to€confirm€the€defendant's€understanding€of€theÏwaiver€and€her€acquiescence€in€the€relinquishment€of€rights€that€itÏbetokens.ÿ.Courier New Regular Ý ƒ”ü$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€category€is€infinitely€variable,€but,€by€way€ofÐ ° Ðillustration,€we€would€include€within€it€situations€in€whichÏappellants€claim€that€their€sentences€were€based€onÏconstitutionally€impermissible€factors€(say,€race€or€ethnicity),ÏòòBrownóó,€232€F.3d€at€403;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSchmidtóó,€47€F.3d€188,€190Ð X Ð(7th€Cir.€1995),€or€that€the€plea€proceedings€were€tainted€byÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€òòHernandezóó,€242€F.3d€at€113„14;Ð ´  ÐòòJemisonóó,€237€F.3d€at€916€n.8.×Ã=×× C ××Ã,×× C × ÑÝ ƒ)x$ÝÓ=€!Fœ!ÐdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X/íXXHXÔÔ‡â‹XX/íÔTo€cite€a€few€examples,€we€do€notÐ ° Ðthink€that€a€waiver€should€be€construed€toÏbar€an€appeal€alleging€that€the€trial€courtÏimposed€a€sentence€a€sentenceÐ † Ö ‹ Ðexceeding€the€maximum€penaltyÏpermitted€by€law,€òòBlackóó,€201€F.3d€atÐ ¢ò Ð1301;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAttaróó,€38€F.3d€727,Ð ”ä Ð729„32€(4th€Cir.€1994),€or€one€thatÏviolated€a€material€term€of€the€pleaÏagreement,òòóó€òòÔ_ÔMichelsenÔ_Ôóó,€141€F.3d€at€872;Ð jº  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòNavarro„Ô_ÔBotelloÔ_Ôóó,€912Ð \¬  ÐF.2d€318,€321€(9th€Cir.€1990).Ô#†X/íXâ‹Í#ÔÔ#†HXgÕXXX/í®#Ô -Ô_ÔÝ ƒÒ™ÿÝÓ=€.‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€rule€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAfter€imposing€sentence€in€any€case,€the€courtÏmust€advise€the€defendant€of€any€right€toÏappeal€the€sentence,€and€of€the€right€of€aÏperson€who€is€unable€to€pay€the€cost€of€anÏappeal€to€apply€for€leave€to€appeal€in€formaÏpauperis.ò òó óЊ Ú` x` x ÐÌFed.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(5).ÿ.Courier New Regular ~Ô_ÔÝ ƒ”üÿÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝFinality€is€an€especially€important€consideration€inÐ ° Ðsociety's€attempt€to€administer€a€zetetick€criminal€justice€system.€ÏIts€virtues€have€been€extolled€elsewhere,€òòe.g.óó,€òòDanielsóó€v.€òòUnitedÐ \¬ ÐStatesóó,òòóó€121€S.€Ct.€1578,€1582€(2001);€òòLackawanna€County€Dist.€Atty.óóÐ 2‚ Ðv.€òòCrossóó,€121€S.€Ct.€1567,€1573„74€(2001),€and€it€would€beÐ X Ðpleonastic€to€rehearse€them€here. Ý ƒÒ™$ÝÓ=€1‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€category€is€infinitely€variable,€but,€by€way€ofÐ ° Ðillustration,€we€would€include€within€it€situations€in€whichÏappellants€claim€that€their€sentences€were€based€onÏconstitutionally€impermissible€factors€(say,€race€or€ethnicity),ÏòòBrownóó,€232€F.3d€at€403;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSchmidtóó,€47€F.3d€188,€190Ð X Ð(7th€Cir.€1995),€or€that€the€plea€proceedings€were€tainted€byÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€òòHernandezóó,€242€F.3d€at€113„14;Ð ´  ÐòòJemisonóó,€237€F.3d€at€916€n.8.×Ã4×× C ××Ã8×× C ×ÿ.Courier New Regular ÷Ô_ÔÝ ƒÒ™ÿÝÓ=€3‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€line€with€this€aspect€of€the€agreement,€the€appellantÐ ° Ðeventually€pled€guilty€in€a€Maine€state€court€to€two€counts€ofÏfelony€murder€and€one€count€of€kidnapping.€€She€received€a€twenty„¼year€incarcerative€sentence,€to€be€served€concurrently€with€theÏsentence€previously€imposed€by€the€federal€district€court.ÿ.Courier New Regular ÑÝ ƒ)x$ÝÓ=€5Fœ!ÐdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡6X/íXXHXÔÔ‡6â‹XX/íÔTo€cite€a€few€examples,€we€do€notÐ ° Ðthink€that€a€waiver€should€be€construed€toÏbar€an€appeal€alleging€that€the€trial€courtÏimposed€a€sentence€a€sentenceÐ † Ö ‹ Ðexceeding€the€maximum€penaltyÏpermitted€by€law,€òòBlackóó,€201€F.3d€atÐ ¢ò Ð1301;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAttaróó,€38€F.3d€727,Ð ”ä Ð729„32€(4th€Cir.€1994),€or€one€thatÏviolated€a€material€term€of€the€pleaÏagreement,òòóó€òòÔ_ÔMichelsenÔ_Ôóó,€141€F.3d€at€872;Ð jº  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòNavarro„Ô_ÔBotelloÔ_Ôóó,€912Ð \¬  ÐF.2d€318,€321€(9th€Cir.€1990).Ô#†6X/íXâ‹Í#ÔÔ#†7XgÕXXX/í®#Ô,†r‰AZ"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular<¾½Q 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular ÑÝ ƒ)x$ÝÓ=€5Fœ!ÐdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡6X/íXXHXÔÔ‡6â‹XX/íÔTo€cite€a€few€examples,€we€do€notÐ ° Ðthink€that€a€waiver€should€be€construed€toÏbar€an€appeal€alleging€that€the€trial€courtÏimposed€a€sentence€a€sentenceÐ † Ö ‹ Ðexceeding€the€maximum€penaltyÏpermitted€by€law,€òòBlackóó,€201€F.3d€atÐ ¢ò Ð1301;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAttaróó,€38€F.3d€727,Ð ”ä Ð729„32€(4th€Cir.€1994),€or€one€thatÏviolated€a€material€term€of€the€pleaÏagreement,òòóó€òòÔ_ÔMichelsenÔ_Ôóó,€141€F.3d€at€872;Ð jº  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòNavarro„Ô_ÔBotelloÔ_Ôóó,€912Ð \¬  ÐF.2d€318,€321€(9th€Cir.€1990).Ô#†6X/íXâ‹Í#ÔÔ#†7XgÕXXX/í®#Ô Ý ƒÒ™$ÝÓ=€:‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTo€cite€a€few€examples,€we€do€not€think€that€a€waiver€shouldÐ ° Ðbe€construed€to€bar€an€appeal€if€the€trial€court€imposes€a€sentenceÐ †Ö  Ðexceeding€the€maximum€penalty€permitted€by€law,€òòBlackóó,€201€F.3d€atÐ ° Ð1301;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAttaróó,€38€F.3d€727,€729„32€(4th€Cir.€1994),Ð †Ö Ðor€one€that€violates€a€material€term€of€the€plea€agreement,òòóóÐ \¬ ÐòòMichelsenóó,€141€F.3d€at€872;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòNavarro„Ô_ÔBotelloÔ_Ôóó,€912Ð 2‚ ÐF.2d€318,€321€(9th€Cir.€1990).ÿ.Courier New Regular ÅÔ_ÔÝ ƒÒ™ÿÝÓ=€<‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIndeed,€immediately€following€the€imposition€of€sentence,€theÐ ° Ðcourt€exacerbated€the€problem,€stating:€€"I€must€advise€you,€Ms.ÏTeeter,€that€you€have€a€right€to€appeal€this€sentence€if€you€wishÏto€do€so.€€Do€you€understand€that?"€€Eliciting€an€affirmativeÏresponse,€the€court€proceeded€to€explain,€in€considerable€detail,Ïthe€requirements€for€filing€an€appeal.€€At€no€time€did€the€courtÏmention€the€limitations€on€the€right€to€appeal€ostensibly€imposedÏby€the€plea€agreement.€€Throughout,€the€prosecutor€stood€mute.ÿ.Courier New Regular ÑÝ ƒ)x$ÝÓ=€!Fœ!ÐdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X/íXXHXÔÔ‡â‹XX/íÔTo€cite€a€few€examples,€we€do€notÐ ° Ðthink€that€a€waiver€should€be€construed€toÏbar€an€appeal€alleging€that€the€trial€courtÏimposed€a€sentence€a€sentenceÐ † Ö ‹ Ðexceeding€the€maximum€penaltyÏpermitted€by€law,€òòBlackóó,€201€F.3d€atÐ ¢ò Ð1301;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAttaróó,€38€F.3d€727,Ð ”ä Ð729„32€(4th€Cir.€1994),€or€one€thatÏviolated€a€material€term€of€the€pleaÏagreement,òòóó€òòÔ_ÔMichelsenÔ_Ôóó,€141€F.3d€at€872;Ð jº  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòNavarro„Ô_ÔBotelloÔ_Ôóó,€912Ð \¬  ÐF.2d€318,€321€(9th€Cir.€1990).Ô#†X/íXâ‹Í#ÔÔ#†HXgÕXXX/í®#Ô »Ý ƒÒ™$ÝÓ=€?‡øAXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔConceivably,€there€may€be€a€rare€case€in€which€relief€fromÐ ° Ðsuch€a€stipulation€would€be€justified€to€avoid€a€miscarriage€ofÏjustice€or€to€correct€a€mutual€mistake.€€But€such€cases€will€be€fewÏand€far€between,€and€the€case€at€hand€is€not€one€of€them.ÿ.Courier New Regularÿ.Courier New Regular(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular&Courier Regular :Ô_ÔÝ ƒ”üÿÝÓ  ÓÓ=€A'„AXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€courts€of€appeals€have€been€consentient,€we€noteÐ ° Ðthat€individual€judges€have€demurred.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð †Ö ÐòòMelanconóó,€972€F.2d€566,€570„80€(5th€Cir.€1992)€(Parker,€J.,Ð \¬ Ðconcurring);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPerezóó,€46€F.€Supp.€2d€59,€64„72€(D.Ð 2‚ ÐMass.€1999);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòJohnsonóó,€992€F.€Supp.€437,€438„40Ð X Ð(D.D.C.€1997);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòRaynoróó,€989€F.€Supp.€43,€43„49Ð Þ. Ð(D.D.C.€1997).€€Some€commentators€also€have€argued€against€theÏvalidity€of€presentence€waivers€of€appellate€rights.€€òòE.g.óó,€Jack€W.Ð Š Ú ÐCampbell€IV€&€Gregory€A.€Castanias,€òòSentencing„Appeal€Waivers:€Ð ` ° ÐRecent€Decisions€Open€the€Door€to€Reinvigorated€Challengesóó,€TheÐ 6 †  ÐChampion,€May€2000,€at€34.<¾½Q 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular MÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÝ ƒGÿÝÓ=€·gøoXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€rule€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAfter€imposing€sentence€in€any€case,€the€courtÏmust€advise€the€defendant€of€any€right€toÏappeal€the€sentence,€and€of€the€right€of€aÏperson€who€is€unable€to€pay€the€cost€of€anÏappeal€to€apply€for€leave€to€appeal€in€formaÏpauperis.ò òó óЊ Ú` x` x ÐÌFed.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(5). MÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÝ ƒGÿÝÓ=€ºgøoXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€rule€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAfter€imposing€sentence€in€any€case,€the€courtÏmust€advise€the€defendant€of€any€right€toÏappeal€the€sentence,€and€of€the€right€of€aÏperson€who€is€unable€to€pay€the€cost€of€anÏappeal€to€apply€for€leave€to€appeal€in€formaÏpauperis.ò òó óЊ Ú` x` x ÐÌFed.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(5). MÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÝ ƒGÿÝÓ=€ÂgøoXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€rule€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAfter€imposing€sentence€in€any€case,€the€courtÏmust€advise€the€defendant€of€any€right€toÏappeal€the€sentence,€and€of€the€right€of€aÏperson€who€is€unable€to€pay€the€cost€of€anÏappeal€to€apply€for€leave€to€appeal€in€formaÏpauperis.ò òó óЊ Ú` x` x ÐÌFed.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(5). MÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÝ ƒGÿÝÓ=€ÅgøoXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€rule€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAfter€imposing€sentence€in€any€case,€the€courtÏmust€advise€the€defendant€of€any€right€toÏappeal€the€sentence,€and€of€the€right€of€aÏperson€who€is€unable€to€pay€the€cost€of€anÏappeal€to€apply€for€leave€to€appeal€in€formaÏpauperis.ò òó óЊ Ú` x` x ÐÌFed.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(5). MÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÝ ƒGÿÝÓ=€ÈgøoXÐXdÐd=ÓÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€rule€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAfter€imposing€sentence€in€any€case,€the€courtÏmust€advise€the€defendant€of€any€right€toÏappeal€the€sentence,€and€of€the€right€of€aÏperson€who€is€unable€to€pay€the€cost€of€anÏappeal€to€apply€for€leave€to€appeal€in€formaÏpauperis.ò òó óЊ Ú` x` x ÐÌFed.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(5).Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRXà3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡H°¬³°XHXÔÔ‡B° °°H°¬³ÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†BX>‹X°B° Å#ÔÔ‡B„-„XBX>‹ÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†BX>‹X„B„-Y#ÔÔ#†HXW¤XXBX>‹ä#Ôó óÐ à ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE<£ ` AßÐ ¤ ô ÐÌÌNo.€00„2332ÌÌà@ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA,ˆÌÌà@ÐÐ&ìàAppellee,ˆÌÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÌÌà@xx!ìàPATRICIA€A.€TEETER,ˆÌÌà@ ìàDefendant,€Appellant.ˆÌÌßA€') °°` dE<f` AßÐ g· ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÌÌà@ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MAINEˆÌÌà@È È ìà[Hon.€Gene€Carter,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ ¤ô ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<O` AßÐ P  ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÌÌà@<< ìàBoudin,€òòChief€Judgeóó,ˆÐ á1 ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya€and€Lynch,€òòCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð Ý! ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<8!` AßÐ 9!‰# ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòPeter€E.€Ô_ÔRodwayÔ_Ôóó€and€òòÔ_ÔRodwayÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔHorodyskiÔ_Ôóó€on€brief€for€appellant.Ð "n% Ðà  àòòJay€P.€Ô_ÔMcCloskeyÔ_Ôóó,€United€States€Attorney,€and€òòMargaret€D.Ð ô"D& ÐÔ_ÔMcGaugheyÔ_Ôóó,€Assistant€United€States€Attorney,€on€brief€for€appellee.Ð Ê#' ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  L&œ!* ‹‹ÐÓ¦Óñ ñÐ SI°&"+ Àâ@37094„„‰Àâ@‰‹‹SÐñ ññ ñÐ 0&°&"+ „„‹‹0Ðñ ñÌññJuly€23,€Ô_Ô20ññññññ90ñññññ ñ01ñ ñÔ_ÔÌÐ SID\(¬#." Àâ@37094 Àâ@ ‹‹SÐÐ(°&"/  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÌÓ  ÓÌÐ  ä+4'2? ÐÑ  ÑññÓ=€C±CXÐ XdÐd=ÓññÓÓÑ€ÑÑ8€C<‡CX XdÈXXdÖ8ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€In€this€sentencing€appeal,€weÐ ° Ðaddress€for€the€first€time€two€important€questions.€€The€principalÏquestion€concerns€the€validity€of€an€advance€waiver€of€appellateÏrights€contained€in€a€plea€agreement.ññ׃×ññññ׃×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€we€conclude€thatÐ Ð  Ðsuch€waivers€are€not€forbidden,€we€refuse€to€give€effect€to€theÏwaiver€in€this€case€because€the€record€offers€no€sufficientÏassurance€that€it€was€tendered€knowingly€and€voluntarily.Ìà ` àDespite€winning€this€battle,€the€appellant€ultimatelyÏloses€the€war.€€Entertaining€her€appeal,€we€reach€the€second€mainÏquestion€ð"ð€one€that€involves€the€effect€to€be€given€to€aÏstipulation,€contained€in€a€plea€agreement,€as€to€how€a€specificÏsentencing€issue€should€be€resolved.€€On€the€facts€of€this€case,€weÏhold€that€the€district€court€did€not€commit€reversible€error€inÏaccepting€and€acting€upon€a€stipulated€cross„reference€within€theÏsentencing€guidelines€and,€concomitantly,€employing€the€stipulatedÏbase€offense€level€(BOL)€produced€by€the€use€of€that€cross„¼reference.Ìà ` àThe€appellant€also€raises€other,€more€pedestrian€issues.€ÏAs€to€those€issues,€we€hold€that€the€district€court's€refusal€toÏdepart€downward€from€the€guideline€sentencing€range€(Ô_ÔGSRÔ_Ô)€did€notÏconstitute€an€appealable€event;€and€that€the€court's€assessment€ofÐ <&Œ!( ÐÔ_Ôthe€appellant's€role€in€the€offense€was€not€clearly€erroneous.€ÏConsequently,€we€affirm€the€ññprotractedññññsubstantialññ€prison€sentence€imposedÏbelow.Ìò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ ´  Ðà ` àDefendant„appellant€Patricia€A.€Teeter€is€a€forty„¼something„year„old€woman€whose€story,€insofar€as€relevant€here,Ïreflects€misplaced€affection,€terrible€judgment,€and€the€gruesomeÏdepths€of€man's€inhumanity€to€man.€€We€recount€the€tale€at€someÏlength.Ìà ` àThe€appellant's€troubles€began€when€she€forged€a€closeÏfriendship€with€Steven€Brown€despite€warnings€from€friends€thatÏBrown€had€a€propensity€for€violence.€€On€March€22,€1999,€aÏmatrimonial€court€found€that€Brown€had€physically€abused€hisÏestrangedò òó ó€wife,€Deborah,€and€the€couple's€minor€children.€€TheÐ ˆØ Ðcourt€dealt€Brown€a€series€of€heavy€blows:€€it€awarded€custody€toÏDeborah,€sanctioned€her€departure€from€New€York,€and€ordered€BrownÏto€refrain€from€any€contact€either€with€her€or€the€children.€€BrownÏtold€the€appellant€of€the€court's€decree,€leaving€no€doubt€aboutÏhis€perturbation.Ìà ` àOn€March€27,€Brown€asked€the€appellant€to€accompany€himÏon€a€"vacation"€trip€to€Maine€(during€which€he€would€retrieve€hisÏdog€from€Deborah).€€Although€the€appellant€knew€that€Brown€hadÏthreatened€violence€against€Deborah€if€he€lost€custody€of€hisÏoffspring,€she€nonetheless€agreed€to€the€excursion.€€She€thenÐ @+&. Ðwatched€Brown€pack€her€car€with€a€small€arsenal,€including€an€SKSÏassault€rifle,€a€.20€gauge€shotgun,€ammunition€for€the€weapons,€andÏa€pair€of€knives.€€Brown€also€stowedò òó ó€duct€tape,€rope,€and€two€hand„Ð X Ðheld€radios€aboard€the€vehicle.Ìà ` àThe€"vacationers"€departed€from€New€York€early€the€nextÏmorning.€€Once€in€New€Hampshire,€they€temporarily€abandoned€theÏappellant's€car,€rented€another€vehicle,€and€proceeded€to€Lebanon,ÏMaine.€€They€eventually€located€the€trailer€occupied€by€Deborah,Ïher€children,€her€brother,€her€father,€and€her€new€swain.€€The€newÏarrivals€spent€the€afternoon€and€evening€spying€on€the€group€whileÏBrown€formulated€a€plan€for€Deborah's€abduction.Ìà ` àThat€night,€Brown€instructed€the€appellant€to€approachÏthe€trailer€and€attempt€to€lure€one€of€the€male€occupants€outsideÏby€claiming€(falsely)€that€she€was€having€car€trouble.€€Brown€toldÏthe€appellant€that€if€she€succeeded,€he€would€then€incapacitate€theÏgood€Samaritan.€€Following€Brown's€script,€the€appellant€inveigledÏDeborah's€brother,€Donald€Wood,€Jr.,€to€come€outside.€€Brown€hitÏhim€over€the€head€with€a€piece€of€lead€pipe€as€he€approached€theÏrental€car.€€The€blow€made€an€"eerie"€sound€that€the€appellantÏlater€said€she€would€never€forget.€€Brown€then€dragged€Wood€intoÏthe€woods€ð"ð€out€of€the€appellant's€sight€ð"ð€and€stabbed€him€twice.€ÏAs€matters€turned€out,€this€last€bit€of€mayhem€was€totallyÏunnecessary,€inasmuch€as€an€autopsy€later€revealed€that€the€blow€toÏthe€head€was€fatal.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àAt€Brown's€request,€the€appellant€returned€to€the€trailerÏand,€telling€the€same€apocryphal€tale,€convinced€Deborah's€consort,ÏChris€Brouillard,€to€inspect€the€car.€€When€Brouillard€approached,ÏBrown€forced€him€to€the€ground,€questioned€him€about€hisÏrelationship€with€Deborah,€struck€him€with€the€pipe,€dragged€himÏinto€the€copse,€and€stabbed€him€three€times.Ìà ` àNot€content€with€two€murders,€Brown€instructed€theÏappellant€to€fetch€yet€another€victim€from€the€trailer.€€AlthoughÏthe€appellant€attempted€to€comply,€the€third€try€did€not€goÏaccording€to€the€script.€€Deborah€ð"ð€her€suspicions€aroused€by€theÏprevious€activity€ð"ð€insisted€that€she€drive€her€own€truck€to€theÏspot€where€the€appellant's€vehicle€ostensibly€had€been€stranded.€ÏAs€Deborah€neared€the€rental€car,€she€spied€Brown€lurking€in€theÏwoods€and€drove€away€at€high€speed.€€After€a€short€interval,€sheÏreturned€to€the€trailer.€€When€she€pulled€into€the€driveway,€BrownÏforced€her€into€the€rental€car€at€gunpoint€and€drove€to€NewÏHampshire€(with€the€appellant€as€an€added€passenger).€€The€rentalÏcar€was€returned€only€after€the€appellant€had€wiped€it€down€toÏobliterate€her€fingerprints.Ìà ` àThe€trio€proceeded€in€the€appellant's€automobile€to€aÏmotel€in€East€Greenbush,€New€York.€€Acting€on€Brown's€instructions,Ïthe€appellant€rented€two€adjoining€rooms€(one€for€herself,€one€forÏher€fellow€travelers).€€To€prevent€Deborah€from€calling€for€help,ÏBrown€removed€the€telephone€from€his€room€and€gave€it€to€theÐ $+t&. Ðappellant.€€During€the€day,€the€appellant€washed€Brown'sÏbloodstained€clothes€and€ran€errands€for€him.€€While€away€from€theÏmotel,€she€called€a€friend€who€informed€her€that€Wood€andÏBrouillard€were€dead,€and€that€the€police€had€mounted€a€manhunt€forÏBrown.€€The€appellant€made€no€attempt€either€to€flee€or€to€contactÏthe€authorities.€€When€the€police€raided€the€motel€the€nextÏmorning,€she€vainly€attempted€to€warn€Brown€by€giving€a€prearrangedÏsignal.Ìà ` àFollowing€her€arrest,€the€appellant€faced€a€plethora€ofÏfederal€and€state€charges.€€With€respect€to€the€federal€charges,Ïshe€eventually€entered€into€a€plea€agreement€and€admitted€her€guiltÏas€to€one€count€of€conspiracy,€two€counts€anent€the€use€of€aÏfirearm€in€connection€with€a€crime€of€violence,€two€counts€ofÏaiding€and€abetting€interstate€domestic€violence,€one€count€ofÏaiding€and€abetting€interstate€stalking,€and€one€count€of€aidingÏand€abetting€the€interstate€violation€of€a€protection€order.€€18ÏU.S.C.€ðððð€2,€371,€924(b)„(c),€2261(a),€2261A,€2262(a)„(1).€€TheÏappellant€also€agreed€not€to€contest€certain€of€the€state€charges.ññ׃"×ññññ׃2×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р!l" ÐIn€return,€the€United€States€agreed€to€dismiss€three€other€counts,Ïincluding€one€for€kidnapping.€€The€parties€stipulated,€for€federalÏsentencing€purposes,€to€a€BOL€of€43€(a€figure€derived€by€cross„Ð  &p!( Ðreference€to€the€first„degree€murder€guideline,€USSG€ðð2A1.1).€ÏFinally,€the€appellant€waived€her€right€to€appeal€any€sentenceÏimposed€by€the€district€court.Ìà ` àThe€court€convened€a€change„of„plea€hearing€on€JanuaryÏ19,€2000.€€At€that€session,€the€court€queried€the€appellant€as€toÏher€overall€understanding€of€the€plea€agreement,€confirmed€that€noÏunexpressed€promises€had€been€made€to€her,€and€determined€that€sheÏwas€changing€her€plea€voluntarily.€€However,€the€court€neglected€toÏmention€the€waiver€of€appellate€rights€contained€in€the€pleaÏagreement.€€Instead,€it€told€the€appellant,€without€qualificationÏand€without€any€demurrer€from€the€prosecutor,€that€she€would€haveÏa€right€to€appeal€any€sentence€imposed.Ìà ` àAt€the€disposition€hearing€(which€stretched€over€severalÏdays),€the€appellant€asseverated€that€notwithstanding€the€terms€ofÏher€plea€agreement,€the€district€court€should€renounce€theÏsuggested€cross„reference€and€recalculate€her€BOL.€€As€a€fallback,Ïshe€argued€that€even€if€the€cross„reference€endured,€she€wasÏentitled€to€a€downward€departure€because€she€had€never€intendedÏthat€Wood€or€Brouillard€perish.€€Lastly,€she€sought€a€role„in„the„¼offense€adjustment€on€the€ground€that€she€was€a€minimal€(or,€atÏmost,€minor)€participant€in€the€criminal€activity.Ìà ` àòòóóThe€sentencing€court€rejected€each€and€all€of€theseÐ Ì'#* Ðimportunings.€€The€court€cross„referenced€to€the€first„degreeÏmurder€guideline€to€reach€a€BOL€of€43,€reduced€the€offense€level€toÐ $+t&. Ð40€because€the€appellant€had€both€accepted€responsibility€for€herÏactions€and€cooperated€with€the€authorities,€òòseeóó€USSG€ðð3E1.1,€andÐ \¬ Ðused€that€figure€in€calculating€her€GSR€(eschewing€any€role„in„the„¼offense€discount).€€Given€the€absence€of€any€significant€criminalÏhistory,€these€computations€yielded€a€GSR€of€292„365€months.ò òó ó€€TheÐ ` ° Ðcourt€sentenced€the€appellant€at€the€bottom€of€that€range€but€addedÏa€mandatory€consecutive€sentence€of€60€months€on€the€firearmÏcounts.€€The€court€then€advised€the€appellant,€without€tailoringÏits€comments€to€the€contours€of€the€plea„agreement€waiver€ofÏappeal,€"that€you€have€a€right€to€appeal€this€sentence€if€you€wishÏto€do€so."€€The€prosecutor€did€not€attempt€to€correct€this€apparentÏmisstatement.Ìà ` àThis€timely€appeal€ensued.€€In€it,€the€appellant€seeks€toÏrevisit€the€issues€that€she€unsuccessfully€advanced€at€theÏdisposition€hearing.€€Before€discussing€that€proffer,€however,€weÏfirst€must€confront€the€government's€contention€that€this€appealÏcannot€go€forward€because€Teeter€should€be€held€to€the€terms€of€theÏwaiver€embedded€in€her€plea€agreement.Ìò òII.€€PRESENTENCE€WAIVERS€OF€APPELLATE€RIGHTSó óÐ È"$ Ðà ` àWe€divide€this€portion€of€our€opinion€into€threeÏsegments.€€First,€we€discuss€the€validity€in€general€of€presentenceÏwaivers€of€appellate€rights.€€Next,€we€explore€the€specificÏcriteria€and€conditions€that€must€be€met€in€order€for€such€waiversÏto€be€effective,€as€well€as€the€general€power€of€appellate€courtsÐ @+&. Ðto€override€such€waivers€in€the€interests€of€justice.€€Finally,€weÏassay€the€waiver€at€issue€here.Ìà@TT ìàò òA.€€òòPresentence€Waivers€of€Appellate€Rights:€€An€Overviewóó.ó óˆÐ X Ðà ` àThe€basic€argument€against€presentence€waivers€ofÏappellate€rights€is€that€such€waivers€are€anticipatory:€€at€theÏtime€the€defendant€signs€the€plea€agreement,€she€does€not€have€aÏclue€as€to€the€nature€and€magnitude€of€the€sentencing€errors€thatÏmay€be€visited€upon€her.€€Her€waiver€typically€embraces€allÏdeterminations€later€made€by€the€sentencing€court€ð"ð€some€of€whichÏmay€never€have€occurred€either€to€her€or€to€the€government,€andÏsome€of€which€may€be€quite€different€than€either€thought€possible.€ÏIn€a€certain€sense,€then€ð"ð€though€not€in€the€usual€criminal€lawÏsense€ð"ð€a€waiver€of€the€right€to€appeal€cannot€be€"knowing."€€InÏthe€appellant's€view,€this€is€a€fundamental€defect€ð"ð€and€one€thatÏdistinguishes€presentence€waivers€of€appellate€rights€from€otherÏwaivers€contained€in€a€plea€agreement.Ìà ` àWe€are€not€unsympathetic€to€this€argument.€€Withal,€threeÏreasons€counsel€persuasively€in€favor€of€a€rule€that€accordsÏgeneral€validity€to€presentence€waivers€of€appellate€rights.ññ׃×ññññ׃×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рä"4$ ÐFirst,€waivers€are€not€inherently€suspect€in€criminal€cases€anyÏmore€than€in€civil€cases.€€Criminal€defendants€typically€may€waiveÏtheir€rights,€as€long€as€they€do€so€voluntarily€and€with€knowledgeÏof€the€general€nature€and€consequences€of€the€waiver.€€òòSeeóó€òòAdamsóó€v.Ð ´  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€317€U.S.€269,€275€(1942)€(discussing€waiver€of€rightÐ ` ° Ðto€jury€trial);€òòJohnsonóó€v.€òòZerbstóó,€304€U.S.€458,€464„67€(1938)Ð  \  Ð(discussing€waiver€of€right€to€counsel).€€Indeed,€guilty€pleas€areÏa€staple€of€our€criminal€justice€system€ð"ð€and€a€guilty€pleaÏinevitably€entails€a€waiver€of€numerous€rights.€€Although€many€ofÏthese€waivers€pertain€to€future€events€ð"ð€a€waiver€of€the€right€toÏtrial€by€jury€is€a€good€example€ð"ð€their€prospective€nature€hasÏnever€been€thought€to€place€them€off€limits€or€to€render€theÏdefendant's€act€"unknowing."Ìà ` àMoreover,€the€idea€of€permitting€presentence€waivers€ofÏappellate€rights€seems€relatively€tame€because€the€right€to€appealÏin€a€criminal€case€is€not€of€constitutional€magnitude.€€òòSeeóó€òòJonesóóÐ Ä Ðv.€òòBarnesóó,€463€U.S.€745,€751€(1983).€€Since€the€Supreme€CourtÐ pÀ  Ðrepeatedly€has€ruled€that€a€defendant€may€waive€constitutionalÏrights€as€part€of€a€plea€agreement,€òòe.g.óó,€òòTown€of€Newtonóó€v.€òòRumeryóó,Ð È"$ Ð480€U.S.€386,€393€(1987);€òòBradyóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€397€U.S.€742,Ð t$Ä& Ð752„53€(1970),€it€follows€logically€that€a€defendant€ought€to€beÏable€to€waive€rights€that€are€purely€creatures€of€statute.Ìà ` àThe€Criminal€Rules€themselves€lend€support€to€thisÏconclusion.€€Effective€December€1,€1999,€the€Supreme€Court,€withÏthe€approval€of€Congress,€amended€the€Criminal€Rules€to€provideÏspecifically€that,€during€a€change„of„plea€hearing,€the€presidingÏjudge€"must€address€the€defendant€personally€in€open€court€andÏinform€the€defendant€of,€and€determine€that€the€defendantÏunderstands€.€.€.€the€terms€of€any€provision€in€a€plea€agreementÏwaiving€the€right€to€appeal."€€Fed.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(c)(6).€€WhileÏthe€advisory€committee,€in€its€explanatory€note,€made€clear€that€itÏtook€"no€position€on€the€underlying€validity€of€such€waivers,"€itÏrecognized€that€they€had€become€an€accepted€part€of€federal€plea„¼agreement€practice.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó,€advisory€committee€notes.€€ThisÐ l¼ Ðwidespread€acceptance€of€the€practice€is€itself€a€clear€indicationÏthat€those€who€deal€most€frequently€with€criminal€cases€have€comeÏto€conclude€that€presentence€waivers€of€appellate€rights€are€notÏforbidden.Ìà ` àConsiderations€of€public€policy€furnish€a€second€pillarÏon€which€to€rest€a€holding€that€breathes€vitality€into€presentenceÏwaivers€of€appellate€rights.€€Since€criminal€defendants€areÏentitled€to€appeal€convictions€and€sentences€as€a€matter€ofÏstatutory€right,€òòseeóó€18€U.S.C.€ðð€3742;€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1291,€aÐ x)È$, Ðdefendant€is€unlikely€to€waive€this€right€unless€she€believes€thatÐ $+t&. Ðsome€feature€of€a€proffered€plea€agreement€makes€it€worth€her€whileÏto€do€so.€€Aò òó óllowing€a€criminal€defendant€to€agree€to€a€waiver€ofÐ \¬ Ðappeal€gives€her€an€additional€bargaining€chip€in€negotiations€withÏthe€prosecution;€she€may,€for€example,€be€able€to€exchange€thisÏwaiver€for€the€government's€assent€to€the€dismissal€of€otherÏcharges.€€This€benefit€is€very€real;€in€some€cases€the€government,Ïwithout€such€a€waiver,€might€not€be€willing€to€plea„bargain€at€all.Ìà ` àThe€benefit€to€the€prosecution€ð"ð€conservation€ofÏresources€ð"ð€is€obvious.ññ׃×ññññ׃×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€the€same€vein,€presentence€waivers€ofÐ `  Ðappellate€rights€also€husband€judicial€resources€by€discouragingÏgroundless€sentencing€appeals.€€With€court„appointed€counsel€freelyÏavailable€and€nothing€to€lose€by€trying,€a€defendant,€unfettered€byÏa€waiver€agreement,€is€quite€likely€to€appeal€on€a€wing€and€aÏprayer.€€Reducing€the€number€of€baseless€appeals€promotes€bothÏefficiency€and€ò òó ófinality€in€the€adjudication€of€criminal€cases.ññ׃/¾×ññññ׃#¾×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð h Ðà ` àThese€policy€considerations€properly€factor€into€ourÏassessment€of€presentence€waivers€of€appellate€rights.€€òòCf.óó€òòNewÐ pÀ  ÐYorkóó€v.€òòHillóó,€528€U.S.€110,€117€(2000)€("We€allow€waiver€ofÐ ° Ðnumerous€constitutional€protections€for€criminal€defendants€thatÏalso€serve€broader€social€interests.").€€They€indicate€that€theÏgovernment,€the€defendant,€and€the€judicial€system€all€haveÏsomething€to€gain€from€presentence€waivers€of€appellate€rights.€ÏThis€makes€the€device€attractive:€€broadly€speaking,€pleaÏagreements€are€in€the€best€interests€of€the€parties€and€theÏcriminal€justice€system,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPentaóó,€898€F.2d€815,€817Ð d´  Ð(1st€Cir.€1990);€òòCorrealeóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€479€F.2d€944,€947€(1stÐ `  ÐCir.€1973),€and€the€more€options€that€both€sides€have,€the€moreÏlikely€it€is€that€they€will€reach€an€accord.Ìà ` àThe€third€reason€supporting€a€rule€that€accords€validityÏto€presentence€waivers€of€appellate€rights€is€the€sheer€weight€ofÏauthority.€€On€a€close€question,€where€no€obviously€right€or€wrongÏanswer€exists,€courts€of€appeals€should€strive€to€avoid€creatingÏneedless€conflicts.€€In€this€instance,€presentence€waivers€ofÏappellate€rights€have€been€accepted€by€all€nine€of€the€circuitÏcourts€which€have€passed€upon€their€validity.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð !l" ÐòòHernandezóó,€242€F.3d€110,€113€(2d€Cir.€2001);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð È"$ ÐòòFlemingóó,€239€F.3d€761,€763„64€(6th€Cir.€2001);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð t$Ä& ÐòòJemisonóó,€237€F.3d€911,€917€(7th€Cir.€2001);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð  &p!( ÐòòNguyenóó,€235€F.3d€1179,€1182€(9th€Cir.€2000);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð Ì'#* ÐòòCuevas„Andradeóó,€232€F.3d€440,€446€(5th€Cir.€2000);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð x)È$, ÐòòBrownóó,€232€F.3d€399,€403€(4th€Cir.€2000);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòBlackóó,Ð $+t&. Ð201€F.3d€1296,€1300€(10th€Cir.€2000);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHowleóó,€166Ð ° ÐF.3d€1166,€1168€(11th€Cir.€1999);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMichelsenóó,€141Ð \¬ ÐF.3d€867,€871€(8th€Cir.€1998).€€While€these€courts€set€varyingÏboundaries,€they€all€agree€that,€under€ordinary€circumstances,€aÏknowing,€voluntary€waiver€of€the€right€to€appeal€from€a€sentence,Ïcontained€in€a€plea€agreement,€ought€to€be€enforced.ññ׃F×ññññ׃&×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Absent€someÐ  \  Ðconvincing€countervailing€argument€ð"ð€and€we€are€aware€of€none€ð"ð€weÏare€reluctant€to€brush€aside€this€collective€wisdom.€€Thus,€thisÏunanimity€strongly€suggests€that€such€waivers,€if€appropriatelyÏdrafted,€asserted€to,€and€explained,€should€be€honored.Ìà ` àWe€will€not€paint€the€lily.€€Given€the€generalÏavailability€of€waivers€in€criminal€cases,€the€public€policy€gainsÏto€be€reaped€by€allowing€plea„agreement€waivers€of€appellateÏrights,€and€the€impressive€body€of€precedent€sanctioning€suchÏwaivers,€we€hold€that€presentence€waivers€of€appellate€rights€areÏvalid€in€theory.ññÌññññÌÌññññÌññÐ !l" Ðà@\ \ ìàò òB.€€òòCriteria€and€Conditionsóó.ó óˆÐ ° Ðà ` àWe€do€not€lend€our€imprimatur€to€such€waiversÏindiscriminately.€€There€are€obvious€dangers€attendant€to€theÏpractice.€€Sentences€ultimately€are€imposed€by€the€district€courts,Ïwhich€must€make€sentencing€determinations€under€controlling€law.€ÏWhen€a€district€court€errs€in€sentencing,€that€error€may€beÏmanifest€on€the€record.€€Thus,€in€addition€to€concerns€aboutÏfairness€to€the€defendant,€an€institutional€interest€ð!ð€publicÏconfidence€in€the€judicial€system€ð!ð€may€be€adversely€affected€ifÏsuch€errors€go€uncorrected.€€To€ameliorate€these€risks,€we€deem€itÏappropriate€that€such€waivers€meet€stringent€criteria.€€Even€then,Ïwe€think€that€limits€must€be€set€on€the€effect€that€can€be€given€toÏthem.€€ò òó óIt€is€to€those€criteria€and€conditions€that€we€now€turn.Ð Ü, Ðà ` àThe€baseline€for€any€waiver€of€rights€is€that€theÏdefendant€enter€into€it€knowingly€and€voluntarily.€€òòRumeryóó,€480Ð 4„ ÐU.S.€at€394.€€In€the€plea„bargain€context,€the€text€of€the€pleaÏagreement€and€the€content€of€the€change„of„plea€colloquy€areÏcritically€important€to€a€determination€of€knowledge€and€volition.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòParrilla„Tiradoóó,€22€F.3d€368,€373€(1stÐ ä"4$ ÐCir.€1994)€(examining€both€the€text€of€the€plea€agreement€and€theÏchange„of„plea€colloquy€to€determine€whether€a€guilty€plea€wasÏentered€knowingly€and€voluntarily).€€Like€other€courts,€òòe.g.óó,€Ð è'8#* Ðâ âòòJemisonóó,€237€F.3d€at€916„18;€òòNguyenóó,€235€F.3d€at€1182„83,€we€willÐ ”)ä$, Ðconsult€those€sources€in€determining€the€validity€of€a€particularÏpresentence€waiver€of€appellate€rights.Ìâ âà ` àWe€look€first€to€confirm€that€the€written€plea€agreementÏsigned€by€the€defendant€contains€a€clear€statement€elucidating€theÏwaiver€and€delineating€its€scope.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòFlemingóó,€239€F.3d€at€762;Ð ` ° ÐòòBrownóó,€232€F.3d€at€401.€€Mindful€that€Rule€11(c)(6),€quoted€òòsupraóóÐ  \  Ðat€11,ò òó ó€specifically€recognizes€the€importance€of€the€change„of„pleaÐ ¸  Ðhearing€to€any€waiver€of€appellate€rights,€we€next€will€examine€theÏtranscript€of€that€hearing.€€The€focus€of€this€inquiry€is€toÏascertain€whether€the€court's€interrogation€suffices€to€ensure€thatÏthe€defendant€freely€and€intelligently€agreed€to€waive€her€right€toÏappeal€her€forthcoming€sentence.Ìà ` àIn€respect€to€presentence€waivers€of€appellate€rights,Ïseveral€courts€had€held,€without€reference€to€the€neotericÏprovisions€of€Rule€11(c)(6),€that€the€district€judge€must€questionÏthe€defendant€specifically€about€her€understanding€of€the€waiverÏprovision€and€adequately€inform€her€of€its€ramifications.€€òòE.g.óó,Ð pÀ  ÐòòJemisonóó,€237€F.3d€at€917„18;€òòBrownóó,€232€F.3d€at€401„02,€405„06.€Ð !l" ÐWhile€some€courts€previously€had€held€waivers€of€appellate€rightsÏto€be€valid€despite€the€absence€of€specific€questioning€during€theÏchange„of„plea€colloquy,€òòe.g.óó,€òòMichelsenóó,€141€F.3d€at€871„72;Ð  &p!( ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòWengeróó,€58€F.3d€280,€282€(7th€Cir.€1995),€theseÐ Ì'#* Ðdecisions€antedate€the€adoption€of€Rule€11(c)(6).€€That€rule€ð"ðÏwhich€was€in€force€when€Teeter€changed€her€plea€òòóóð"ð€alters€theÐ $+t&. Ðdecisional€calculus.€€In€explicating€the€rationale€for€adopting€theÏrule,€the€advisory€committee€made€it€pellucid€that€such€an€inquiry,Ïproperly€performed,€offers€considerable€assurance€of€theÏdefendant's€knowledge€and€volition.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(c)(6),Ð ´  Ðadvisory€committee€notes.€€Consequently,€we€hold€that€the€districtÏcourt€must€inquire€specifically€at€the€change„of„the„plea€hearingÏinto€any€waiver€of€appellate€rights.ññ׃×ññññ׃)×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Neglecting€this€duty€willÐ ¸  Ðconstitute€error€and€may€serve€to€invalidate€the€waiver,€dependingÏupon€what€the€record€shows€as€to€the€defendants'€knowledge€(thatÏis,€whether€the€defendant,€notwithstanding€the€absence€of€aÏparticularized€inquiry,€understood€the€full€significance€of€theÏwaiver)€and€the€existence€òòvelóó€òònonóó€of€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ d Ðv.€òòBushertóó,€997€F.2d€1343,€1351„52€(11th€Cir.€1993);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Fed.Ð À ÐR.€Crim.€P.€11(h).Ìà ` àOf€course,€courts€ought€to€strive€for€consistency.€€WhileÏnot€necessarily€a€fatal€error,€a€court€can€compromise€an€otherwiseÏadequate€change„of„plea€colloquy€by€sending€contradictory€messagesÏto€the€defendant.€€One€potential€source€of€confusion€looms€when€theÏâ âtrial€court,€acting€pursuant€to€Federal€Rule€of€Criminal€ProcedureÐ È"$ Ð32(c)(5),ññ׃×ññññ׃-×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€tells€the€defendant€at€sentencing€about€her€right€toÐ ° Ðâ âappeal.€€If€a€presentence€waiver€of€appellate€rights€is€in€place,Ïthe€court€should€be€especially€careful€in€its€choice€of€words,Ïtaking€pains€to€explain€to€the€defendant€that€her€right€to€appealÏis€circumscribed€by€her€preexisting€waiver.Ìà ` àOne€court€has€held€that€a€blanket€assurance€about€theÏright€of€appeal,€delivered€when€sentence€is€pronounced,€cancels€aÏpreexisting€waiver€of€appellate€rights.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòBuchananóó,Ð d´  Ð59€F.3d€914,€917„18€(9th€Cir.€1995)€(holding€that€the€sentencingÏcourt's€statement€created€"a€reasonable€expectation"€on€theÏdefendant's€part€that€he€could€appeal€his€sentence,€notwithstandingÏthe€preexisting€waiver).€€Other€courts€have€disagreed,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnitedÐ d ÐStatesóó€v.€òòAtterberryóó,€144€F.3d€1299,€1301€(10th€Cir.€1998);Ð À ÐòòMichelsenóó,€141€F.3d€at€872,€and€so€do€we.€€While€broad€assurancesÐ l¼ Ðto€a€defendant€who€has€waived€her€appellate€rights€(e.g.,€"you€haveÏa€right€to€appeal€your€sentence")€are€to€be€avoided€ð"ð€they€muddyÏthe€waters€and€tend€to€instill€false€hope€ð"ð€they€do€not€effect€aÏper€se€nullification€of€a€plea„agreement€waiver€of€appellateÐ !l" Ðrights.€€Whether€such€assurances€may€constitute€reversible€error€inÏparticular€cases,€and€if€so€when,€are€matters€that€may€be€left€forÏanother€day.Ìà ` àWe€add€a€coda.€€We€have€endeavored€to€provide€generalÏguidance€to€the€district€courts€and€the€bar€concerning€plea„¼agreement€waivers€of€appellate€rights.€€We€caution,€however,€thatÏbecause€such€waivers€are€made€before€any€manifestation€ofÏsentencing€error€emerges,€appellate€courts€must€remain€free€toÏgrant€relief€from€them€in€egregious€cases.€€When€all€is€said€andÏdone,€such€waivers€ò òó óare€meant€to€bring€finality€to€proceedingsÐ ¼  Ðconducted€in€the€ordinary€course,€not€to€leave€acquiescentÏdefendants€totally€exposed€to€future€vagaries€(however€harsh,Ïunfair,€or€unforeseeable).€€Our€basic€premise,€therefore,€is€thatÏif€denying€a€right€of€appeal€would€work€a€miscarriage€of€justiceò òó ó,Ð l¼ Ðthe€appellate€court,€in€its€sound€discretion,€may€refuse€to€honorÏthe€waiver.ññ׃+×ññññ׃0×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€a€subset€of€this€premise,€we€think€that€the€sameÐ Ä Ðflexibility€ought€to€pertain€when€the€district€court€plainly€errsÏin€sentencing.ññ׃@×ññññ׃9@×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð !l" Ðà ` àIn€sum,€we€conclude€that€plea„agreement€waivers€of€theÏright€to€appeal€from€imposed€sentences€are€presumptively€valid€(ifÏknowing€and€voluntary),€but€are€subject€to€a€general€exceptionÏunder€which€the€court€of€appeals€retains€inherent€power€to€relieveÏthe€defendant€of€the€waiver,€albeit€on€terms€that€are€just€to€theÏgovernment,€where€a€miscarriage€of€justice€occurs.€€In€chartingÏthis€course,€we€recognize€that€the€term€"miscarriage€of€justice"€isÏmore€a€concept€than€a€constant.€€Nevertheless,€some€of€theÏconsiderations€come€readily€to€mind:€€the€clarity€of€the€error,€itsÏgravity,€its€character€(e.g.,€whether€it€concerns€a€fact€issue,€aÏsentencing€guideline,€or€a€statutory€maximum),€the€impact€of€theÏerror€on€the€defendant,€the€impact€of€correcting€the€error€on€theÏgovernment,€and€the€extent€to€which€the€defendant€acquiesced€in€theÏresult.€€Other€considerations€doubtless€will€suggest€themselves€inÏspecific€cases.Ìà ` àWe€recognize,€too,€that€this€general€reservation€will,€atÏleast€at€the€outset,€lessen€what€the€government€sees€as€the€primeÏbenefit€of€its€bargain:€€the€automatic€cutoff€of€debate€and€theÏopportunity€to€get€appeals€dismissed€on€motion.€€Realistically,Ïhowever,€the€outlook€is€not€entirely€bleak.€€While€open„ended,€theÏgeneral€reservation€that€we€envision€will€be€applied€sparingly€andÐ  &p!( Ðwithout€undue€generosity.€€Motions€to€dismiss€will€still€beÏentertained€and,€by€appealing€after€promising€not€to€do€so,Ïdefendants€will€risk€giving€the€government€an€option€to€disclaim€aÏplea€agreement,€if€it€wishes€to€do€so.Ìà ` àWe€acknowledge€that€this€approach€represents€a€break€withÏprecedent.€€Although€several€of€our€sister€circuits€have€madeÏclear,€in€approving€presentence€waivers,€that€there€will€be€onlyÏnarrowly€circumscribed€exceptions,€òòe.g.óó,€òòJemisonóó,€237€F.3d€at€911;Ð d´  ÐòòBrownóó,€232€F.3d€at€403;€òòMichelsenóó,€141€F.3d€at€872,ò òó ó€we€do€not€feelÐ `  Ðcomfortable€adopting€any€rigid€taxonomy€without€more€experience.€ÏRelief€from€waivers€has€traditionally€occurred€on€a€fact„specificÏbasis.€€We€believe€that€the€general€reservation€which€we€adoptÏtoday€is€sufficiently€broad€to€capture€any€truly€deserving€case€butÏdemanding€enough€to€prevent€defendants€who€have€agreed€to€waiveÏtheir€right€to€appeal€from€successfully€pursuing€garden„varietyÏclaims€of€error.Ìà@¨ ¨ ìàò òC.€€òòWaiver€in€the€Instant€Caseóó.ó óˆÐ pÀ  Ðà ` àHaving€constructed€a€framework€for€determining€whenÏwaivers€of€appellate€rights€will€be€enforced,€we€ponder€the€waiverÏin€this€case.€€The€following€language€appears€in€paragraph€five€ofÏthe€plea€agreement:ÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€Defendant€is€aware€that€18€U.S.C.€ððÏ3742(a)€affords€a€defendant€the€right€toÏappeal€the€sentence€imposed.€€Knowing€that,€inÏexchange€for€the€Government's€concessions€madeÏherein,€the€Defendant€waives€to€the€fullÏextent€of€the€law€any€right€to€appeal€.€.€.Ð ,f'/ Ðthe€conviction€and€sentence,€or€the€manner€inÏwhich€it€was€determined€.€.€.€.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓThis€explicit€text€is€followed€by€a€statement€acknowledging€theÏappellant's€voluntary€acceptance€of€the€entire€plea€agreement€andÏconfirming€that€she€has€read€and€understood€it.€€The€appellant€andÏher€attorney€signed€the€document€immediately€beneath€thisÏacknowledgment.€€These€desiderata€furnish€prima€facie€evidence€ofÏthe€appellant's€knowledge€and€volition.Ìà ` àWhat€occurred€next€is€somewhat€more€problematic.€€DuringÏthe€change„of„plea€colloquy,€the€district€court€questioned€theÏappellant€concerning€her€overall€understanding€of,€and€acquiescenceÏin,€the€terms€of€the€plea€agreement,€but€did€not€direct€herÏattention€to€the€waiver€provision.€€As€we€have€said,€the€validityÏof€a€waiver€of€appellate€rights€depends€on€whether€the€waiver€wasÏknowingly€and€voluntarily€undertaken.€€Here,€the€court€ð"ð€hampered,Ïno€doubt,€by€the€newness€of€Rule€11(c)(6)€and€the€consequent€lackÏof€any€precedential€guidance€ð"ð€neither€directed€the€appellant'sÏattention€to€the€waiver€provision€nor€discussed€it€with€her.€ÏCompounding€that€problem,€the€court,€near€the€end€of€the€Rule€11Ïcolloquy,€asked€the€appellant:€€"[D]o€you€also€understand€that€bothÏyou€and€the€government€will€have€a€right€to€appeal€any€sentence€IÏimpose?"€€This€unqualified€query€ð"ð€to€which€the€prosecutor€(not€theÏsame€person€who€appears€as€counsel€for€the€government€in€thisÏâ âcourt)€inexplicably€failed€to€take€exception€ð"ð€drew€an€affirmativeÐ N*ž%- Ðresponse€from€the€appellant.€€The€premise€of€this€question€directlyÏcontradicted€the€tenor€of€the€waiver€provision.Ìâ âà ` àGiven€the€court's€failure€to€make€inquiry€into€theÏwaiver,€its€unfortunate€contradiction€of€the€waiver's€terms,€andÏthe€lack€of€any€correction,€then€or€thereafter,ññ׃×ññññ׃;×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€we€cannot€say€withÐ ` ° Ðthe€requisite€assurance€that€the€appellant's€surrender€of€herÏappellate€rights€was€sufficiently€informed.€€Accordingly,€we€findÏthat€the€district€court€transgressed€Rule€11(c)(6).€€The€governmentÏhas€not€argued€that€this€error€was€other€than€prejudicial.€€WeÏthink€that€the€proper€remedy,€given€the€circumstances,€is€to€severÏthe€waiver€of€appellate€rights€from€the€remainder€of€the€pleaÏagreement,€allowing€the€other€provisions€to€remain€in€force.€€òòSeeóóÐ d ÐòòBushertóó,€997€F.2d€at€1353„54.€€Thus,€we€permit€Teeter's€appeal€toÐ À Ðproceed.ò òñÿñÐ l¼ ÐñÿñÐ l¼ ÐIII.€€THE€MERITSó óÐ h Ðà ` àThe€appellant€raises€three€substantive€issues€on€appeal.€ÏFirst,€she€argues€that€the€lower€court€abused€its€discretion€inÏaccepting€the€stipulated€cross„reference€to€the€first„degree€murderÏguideline.€€Second,€she€asks€us€to€reverse€the€court's€decision€notÐ ä"4$ Ðto€depart€downward.€€Finally,€she€complains€that€the€courtÏcommitted€clear€error€when€evaluating€her€role€in€the€offenses€ofÏconviction.€€We€address€these€claims€sequentially.Ìà@LLìàò òA.€€òòThe€Cross„Referenceóó.ó óˆÐ ´  Ðà ` àWhen€sentences€are€imposed€under€the€federal€sentencingÏguidelines,€the€process€encompasses€certain€mechanical€aspects.€ÏFirst,€the€district€court€must€determine€the€section€of€theÏguidelines€that€applies€to€the€offense(s)€of€conviction.€€The€courtÏthen€must€look€to€that€guideline€section€to€determine€the€BOL.€ÏThis€is€not€as€simple€as€it€sounds€because€some€guidelineÏprovisions€are€not€self„contained;€they€require€(or,€at€least,Ïsuggest)€cross„referencing€to€other€guideline€sections€to€helpÏdetermine€the€BOL.Ìà ` àIn€this€case,€the€sentencing€court€determined€that€theÏappellant's€conduct€fell,€in€pertinent€part,€within€the€purview€ofÏUSSG€ðð2A6.2€("Stalking€or€Domestic€Violence").€€This€determinationÏwas€fully€consistent€with€the€plea€agreement,€and€the€appellantÏdoes€not€contest€it.€€Moving€forward,€the€court€noted€that€sectionÏ2A6.2(c)€contains€a€cross„reference€provision€which€reads€asÏfollows:€€"If€the€offense€involved€conduct€covered€by€anotherÏoffense€guideline€from€Chapter€Two,€Part€A€(Offenses€Against€theÏPerson),€apply€that€offense€guideline,€if€the€resulting€offenseÏlevel€is€greater€than€that€determined€above."€€The€court€found€thatÏthe€pertinent€offenses€of€conviction€fell€within€the€scope€of€thisÐ @+&. Ðlanguage€and€cross„referenced€to€the€first„degree€murder€guidelineÏ(USSG€ðð2A1.1).€€Because€that€guideline€yielded€a€higher€BOL€(43),Ïthe€court€applied€it.Ìà ` àThe€appellant€concedes€that,€in€the€plea€agreement,€sheÏstipulated€both€to€this€very€cross„reference€and€to€the€resultantÏBOL€(43).€€She€nonetheless€asseverates€that€the€sentencing€courtÏerred€in€embracing€this€stipulation.€€Here,€however,€the€appellantÏstipulated€to€the€òòfactsóó€underlying€the€cross„reference,€and€thoseÐ d´  Ðfacts€render€the€sentencing€court's€use€of€the€cross„referenceÏplausible.€€No€more€is€exigible€to€warrant€rejection€of€theÏappellant's€asseveration.Ìà ` àWe€have€analogized€plea€agreements€to€contracts,€bindingÏupon€the€prosecution€and€the€defense€alike.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð À ÐòòOrtiz„Santiagoóó,€211€F.3d€146,€151€(1st€Cir.€2000).€€We€have€beenÐ l¼ Ðscrupulous€in€holding€the€government€to€the€due€performance€of€itsÏobligations€thereunder,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòClarkóó,€55€F.3d€9,Ð Ä Ð12„13€(1st€Cir.€1995),ò òó ó€and€defendants€cannot€expect€to€be€treatedÐ pÀ  Ðless€fastidiously.€€Consequently,€defendants€ordinarily€should€beÏheld€to€plea„agreement€terms€that€they€knowingly€and€voluntarilyÏaccept.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAlegriaóó,€192€F.3d€179,€185„86€(1stÐ t$Ä& ÐCir.€1999).€€But€there€are€caveats.€€Stipulations€about€legalÏissues,€for€example,€are€problematic.€€There€is€language€in€aÏnumber€of€cases€indicating€(correctly,€we€think)€that€suchÏstipulations€normally€are€not€binding€on€a€court.€òòE.g.óó,€òòEstate€ofÐ $+t&. ÐSanfordóó€v.€òòCommissioneróó,€308€U.S.€39,€51€(1939);€òòWestonóó€v.€òòWash.Ð ° ÐMetro.€Area€Transit€Auth.óó,€78€F.3d€682,€685€(D.C.€Cir.€1996);òòóó€òòGunnóóÐ \¬ Ðv.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€283€F.2d€358,€364€(8th€Cir.€1960).€€Even€whenÐ X Ðstipulations€concern€facts€rather€than€law,€courts€traditionallyÏretain€the€power€to€relieve€parties€from€them€on€terms€that€areÏjust.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòTI€Fed.€Credit€Unionóó€v.€òòDelBonisóó,€72€F.3d€921,€928Ð  \  Ð(1st€Cir.€1995).Ìà ` àOf€course,€except€where€the€parties€have€entered€into€aÏbinding€plea€agreement€under€the€aegis€of€Federal€Rule€of€CriminalÏProcedure€11(e)(1)(C),€the€stipulations€contained€in€the€agreement,Ïeven€if€factual€in€nature,€do€not€tie€the€district€court's€hands.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSaxenaóó,€229€F.3d€1,€4„8€(1st€Cir.€2000);Ð d ÐòòOrtiz„Santiagoóó,€211€F.3d€at€149€n.2.€€That€the€court€has€the€powerÐ À Ðto€deviate€from€such€stipulations,€however,€does€not€obligate€theÏcourt€to€do€so.€€Should€the€court€decide€to€accept€and€act€uponÏfactual€stipulations€for€sentencing€purposes,€the€parties€usuallyÏwill€be€firmly€bound.ññ׃×ññññ׃>×ññÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€general€rule€will€apply€when,€forÐ pÀ  Ðexample,€a€defendant€stipulates€to€a€matter€of€fact€or€to€theÏapplicability€of€a€sentencing€guideline€(the€legal€meaning€of€whichÏâ âis€pellucid)€to€the€unique€facts€of€her€case.€€After€all,€theÐ t$Ä& Ðdefendant€knows€what€she€has€done,€and€has€little€cause€forÏcomplaint€if€the€district€court€takes€her€at€her€word.Ìâ âà ` àIt€is€much€more€difficult€to€justify€binding€effect€forÏa€stipulation€that€purports€to€resolve€a€general€issue€of€law€(orÏone€that€turns€out€to€do€so€without€acknowledgment).€€To€cite€anÏextreme€example,€it€is€difficult€to€see€why€a€district€court€thatÏmisreads€the€effective€date€of€a€statute€bearing€on€a€sentencingÏdetermination€should€automatically€be€insulated€from€appellateÏreview€because€the€parties€stipulated€to€the€(wrong)€effectiveÏdate.€€That€leaves€stipulations€as€to€mixed€questions€of€fact€andÏlaw.€€As€to€such€stipulations,€generalizations€are€risky€business.€ÏThe€answer,€in€a€particular€case,€may€depend€on€the€extent€to€whichÏthe€mixed€question€is€fact„dominated,€òòcf.óó€òòIn€re€Extradition€ofÐ À ÐHowardóó,€996€F.2d€1320,€1328€(1st€Cir.€1993),€or€the€extent€to€whichÐ l¼ Ðthe€known€facts€(whether€found€by€the€court€or€stipulated€by€theÏparties)€make€a€given€answer€to€the€mixed€question€plausible.Ìà ` àThis€case€involves€a€combination€of€these€principles.€ÏThe€appellant€stipulated€to€the€BOL€ð!ð€43€ð!ð€and€to€the€propriety€ofÏusing€the€cross„reference€to€USSG€ðð2A1.1€found€in€USSG€ðð2A6.2€toÏreach€that€BOL.€€To€that€extent,€her€challenge€to€the€stipulationÏis€based€in€law,€and€thus€arguably€subject€to€plenary€review.€€ButÏthere€is€more:€€in€the€course€of€the€proceedings€below,€theÏappellant€pled€guilty€to€counts€five,€six,€seven,€and€ten€(amongÏothers).€€These€counts€charged€her€with€aiding€and€abettingÐ $+t&. Ðinterstate€domestic€violence,€interstate€stalking,€and€interstateÏviolation€of€a€protection€order.€€18€U.S.C.€ðððð€2,€2261(a)(1)„(2),Ï2261A,€2262(a)(1).ò òó ó€€She€admitted€to€certain€facts€through€her€pleaÐ X Ðagreement,€the€change„of„plea€colloquy,€and€at€sentencing.€€ThoseÏfactual€admissions€are€not€now€open€to€challenge€ð"ð€and€theyòòóó€sufficeÐ ` ° Ðto€justify€the€sentencing€court's€use€of€the€stipulated€cross„¼reference.€€We€explain€briefly.Ìà ` àThe€applicable€sentencing€guideline€in€this€case€is€USSGÏðð2A6.2€(Stalking€or€Domestic€Violence).€€As€said,€this€sectionÏcontains€a€cross„reference€to€the€first„degree€murder€guideline,ÏUSSG€ðð2A1.1.€€This€cross„reference€arises€by€virtue€of€USSGÏðð1B1.3(a)(1)(B)€(Relevant€Conduct),€which€pertinently€provides€thatÏa€defendant's€BOL€shall€be€determined€"in€the€case€of€jointlyÏundertaken€criminal€activity€[on€the€basis€of]€all€reasonablyÏforeseeable€acts€and€omissions€of€others€in€furtherance€of€theÏjointly€undertaken€criminal€activity,€that€occurred€during€theÏcommission€of€the€offense€of€conviction."òòóó€€In€the€district€court,Ð pÀ  Ðthe€appellant€admitted€to€crossing€state€lines€to€commit€illegalÏacts€against€Deborah€Brown,€a€stipulation€of€fact€unchallenged€onÏappeal.€€Additionally,€she€admitted€to€seeing€and€hearing€Brown'sÏvicious€attack€on€Wood,€yet€nonetheless€luring€the€next€victim,ÏBrouillard,€into€a€place€of€maximum€danger.€€Given€these€concededÏfacts,€the€murder€of€the€second€victim,€at€the€very€least,€was€"aÏreasonably€foreseeable€act"€in€furtherance€of€the€offenses€ofÐ $+t&. Ðconviction.€€Consequently,€the€district€court€had€a€plausibleÏfactual€basis€for€cross„referencing€to€the€first„degree€murderÏguideline€(as€agreed€by€the€parties)€and€employing€a€BOL€of€43.Ìà ` àOn€this€point,€we€ò òó ófind€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòRobinsonóó,€14€F.3dÐ ´  Ð1200€(7th€Cir.€1994),€instructive.€€There,€the€defendant€enteredÏinto€a€plea€agreement€in€which€he€admitted€to€distributing€specificÏquantities€of€drugsò òó ó.€€The€district€court€sentenced€him€in€line€withÐ ¸  Ðthe€stipulation.€€The€defendant€nonetheless€appealed,€claiming€thatÏthe€court€erred€by€failing€to€make€an€independent€drug„quantityÏdetermination.€€òòId.óó€at€1206.€€The€Seventh€Circuit€quickly€shut€downÐ ¼  Ðthis€appeal:ÌÓÓà8 ` àRobinson€pled€guilty,€and€was€sentenced€basedÏon€what€he€admitted€in€the€plea€agreement,€atÏthe€guideline€level€agreed€upon€in€the€pleaÏagreement.€.€.€.€Robinson€got€what€heÏbargained€for,€he€waived€any€right€toÏchallenge€the€contents€of€the€plea€agreementÏwhen€he€signed€it,€and€he€has€no€basis€toÏchallenge€it€now.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€€The€same€can€be€said€for€Teeter.€€Having€admitted€theÐ šê Ðunderlying€facts€that€supported€the€sentencing€court's€resort€toÏthe€stipulated€cross„reference,€she€is€unable€to€challenge€thatÏdecision€on€appeal.ññÌññÌà@˜ ˜ ìàò òB.€€òòThe€Downward€Departureóó.ó óˆÐ J%š ' Ðà ` àThe€appellant's€fallback€position€is€that,€even€if€theÏdistrict€court€appropriately€cross„referenced€USSG€ðð2A1.1,€itÏnonetheless€erred€in€failing€to€depart€downward.€€This€argumentÏstems€from€the€fact€that€the€heartland€of€the€first„degree€murderÐ ,f'/ Ðguideline€involves€those€who€knowingly€and€intentionallyÏparticipate€in€an€act€of€homicide.ò òó ó€€If,€however,€"the€defendant€didÐ \¬ Ðnot€cause€the€[victim's]€death€intentionally€or€knowingly,"€theÏSentencing€Commission€has€raised€the€possibility€that€"a€downwardÏdeparture€may€be€warranted."€€USSG€ðð2A1.1,€comment.€(n.1).€€Such€aÏdeparture€was€advisable€here,€the€appellant€suggests,€because€sheÏneither€knowingly€nor€intentionally€caused€the€deaths€of€Wood€andÏBrouillard.Ìà ` àWe€lack€jurisdiction€to€consider€this€argument.€€For€theÏmost€part,€departure€decisions€are€discretionary,€and€a€defendantÏcannot€appeal€from€the€sentencing€court's€refusal€to€grant€aÏdownward€departure.€€òòOrtiz„Santiagoóó,€211€F.3d€at€148;òòóó€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ d Ðv.€òòPierroóó,€32€F.3d€611,€619€(1st€Cir.€1994).€€Although€there€is€aÐ À Ðnarrow€window€of€opportunity€for€cases€in€which€the€district€courtÏmisapprehends€its€authority€to€depart,òòóó€òòPierroóó,€32€F.3d€at€619;Ð h ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAmparoóó,€961€F.2d€288,€292€(1st€Cir.€1992),€thisÐ Ä Ðcase€falls€within€the€general€rule,€not€the€long„odds€exception€toÏit.Ìà ` àDespite€the€appellant's€efforts€at€creativeÏcharacterization,€this€assignment€of€error€involves€a€discretionaryÏdeparture€decision,€pure€and€simple.€€Application€Note€1Ïspecifically€refers€to€the€possibility€of€a€"downward€departure"Ïand€leaves€that€possibility€squarely€in€the€hands€of€the€sentencingÏcourt.€€Hence,€we€lack€jurisdiction€to€review€the€court's€refusalÐ $+t&. Ðto€invoke€Application€Note€1€unless€there€is€some€reason€to€believeÏthat€the€court€misunderstood€its€options.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSheaóó,Ð \¬ Ð211€F.3d€658,€674€(1st€Cir.€2000).Ìà ` àThere€is€absolutely€no€basis€for€any€such€belief€here:€Ïthe€appellant€points€to€nothing€that€would€indicate€that€the€courtÏmistook€its€authority€to€depart,€and€the€record€makes€manifest€thatÏJudge€Carter€knew€he€had€the€power€to€depart€but€deliberately€choseÏnot€to€do€so.€€Indeed,€the€judge€stated,€not€once€but€twice,€thatÏhe€was€rejecting€the€appellant's€request€for€a€downward€departureÏbased€on€the€facts€of€record.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€areÏforeclosed€from€second„guessing€the€court's€discretionary€decisionÏnot€to€depart€from€the€GSR.Ìà@È È ìàò òC.€€òòThe€Role„in„the„Offense€Adjustmentóó.ó óˆÐ À Ðà ` àThe€final€arrow€in€the€appellant's€quiver€also€misses€theÏmark.€€She€asserts€that€the€district€court€incorrectly€failed€toÏreduce€her€offense€level€given€her€unimportant€role€in€the€crimeÏspree.€€Absent€a€mistake€of€law€ð"ð€and€we€discern€none€here€ð"ð€weÏreview€such€factbound€status€determinations€for€clear€error.€ÏòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòGarciaóó,€954€F.2d€12,€18€(1st€Cir.€1992).Ð ä"4$ Ðà ` àThe€appellant€says€that€the€lower€court€should€haveÏclassified€her€as€a€"minimal"€or€"minor"€participant,€and€decreasedÏher€offense€level€accordingly.€€A€defendant€who€seeks€a€downwardÏrole„in„the„offense€adjustment€must€prove€her€entitlement€to€it.€Ð ”)ä$, ÐòòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€To€qualify€as€a€minimal€participant€and€obtain€theÐ @+&. Ðconcomitant€four„level€reduction,€the€appellant€would€have€to€proveÏby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€she€was,€at€most,€aÏperipheral€player€in€the€criminal€activity.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€USSGÐ X Ððð3B1.2,€comment.€(n.2)€(giving,€as€an€example€of€a€minimalÏparticipant,€"someone€who€played€no€other€role€in€a€very€large€drugÏsmuggling€operation€than€to€offload€part€of€a€single€marihuanaÏshipment").€€To€qualify€as€a€minor€participant€and€obtain€theÏconcomitant€two„level€reduction,€the€appellant€would€have€to€proveÏby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€she€was€"less€culpable€thanÏmost€other€participants."€€òòId.óó,€comment.€(n.3).€€This€means€thatÐ ¼  Ðshe€must€be€not€only€less€culpable€than€her€cohorts€in€theÏparticular€criminal€endeavor,€but€also€less€culpable€than€theÏmajority€of€those€within€the€universe€of€persons€participating€inÏsimilar€crimes.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMurphyóó,€193€F.3d€1,€9€(1stÐ l¼ ÐCir.€1999);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòOcasioóó,€914€F.2d€330,€333€(1st€Cir.Ð h Ð1990).Ìà ` àGiven€the€allocation€of€the€burden€of€proof,€a€defendantÏwho€seeks€a€downward€role„in„the„offense€adjustment€usually€facesÏan€uphill€climb€in€the€òònisióó€òòpriusóó€court.€€The€deferential€standardÐ È"$ Ðof€review€compounds€the€difficulty,€so€that€a€defendant€who€failsÏto€persuade€at€that€level€faces€a€much€steeper€slope€on€appeal.€Ï"We€have€declared,€with€a€regularity€bordering€on€the€echolalic,Ïthat€.€.€.€battles€over€a€defendant's€status€.€.€.€will€almostÏalways€be€won€or€lost€in€the€district€court."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð $+t&. ÐòòConleyóó,€156€F.3d€78,€85€(1st€Cir.€1998)€(citations€and€internalÐ ° Ðquotation€marks€omitted).€€This€is€such€a€case.Ìà ` àThe€court€below€determined€that€the€appellant€wasÏconsiderably€more€than€a€bit€player€in€the€unfolding€tragedy.€€ThisÏdetermination€is€amply€rooted€in€the€record.€€The€appellantÏfacilitated€Brown's€travel€plans;€went€with€him€to€Maine;€helpedÏhim€track€down€his€prey;€lured€the€first€victim€(Wood)€from€theÏtrailer€to€a€locus€where€Brown€could€more€easily€get€to€him,Ïknowing€that€Brown€had€incapacitation€in€mind;€put€the€secondÏvictim€(Brouillard)€in€harm's€way€after€seeing€Brown€brutallyÏattack€Wood;€aided€Brown€in€abducting€and€holding€hostage€hisÏestrangedò òó ó€wife;€maintained€her€allegiance€even€after€receivingÐ d Ðirrefutable€proof€of€the€murders;€and€attempted€to€warn€Brown€whenÏthe€police€arrived.Ìà ` àTo€be€sure,€the€facts€can€be€marshaled€in€such€a€way€asÏto€put€the€appellant€in€a€somewhat€more€sympathetic€light.€€TheÏappellant's€able€counsel€strives€valiantly€to€transform€the€case€inÏthis€fashion:€€he€claims€that€the€appellant€agreed€only€to€spend€aÏromantic€weekend€holiday€with€her€boyfriend€in€Maine,€and€that€whatÏhappened€thereafter€was€largely€beyond€her€control.€€This€spin€doesÏnot€carry€the€day,€however,€because€the€sentencing€court€was€fullyÏentitled€to€draw€a€different,€more€sinister,€set€of€inferences€fromÏthe€largely€undisputed€facts.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSantiago„Ð x)È$, ÐGonzalezóó,€66€F.3d€3,€7€(1st€Cir.€1995);€òòGarciaóó,€954€F.2d€at€18.€Ð $+t&. ÐAccordingly,€we€uphold€the€district€court's€eschewal€of€a€downwardÏrole„in„the„offense€adjustment.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòRuizóó,€905Ð \¬ ÐF.2d€499,€508€(1st€Cir.€1990)€(explaining€that€"where€there€is€moreÏthan€one€plausible€view€of€the€circumstances,€the€sentencingÏcourt's€choice€among€supportable€alternatives€cannot€be€clearlyÏerroneous").Ìò òIV.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ ¸  Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€Although€we€afford€the€appellantÏa€full€right€of€appeal€notwithstanding€the€waiver€of€appellateÏrights€contained€in€her€plea€agreement,€we€reject€each€and€all€ofÏher€claims€of€error.€€Her€conviction€and€sentence€must,€therefore,ÏbeÌÌò òòòAffirmedóó.ó ó