Whether the trial court calculated the petitioner's guideline range correctly

No question identified. : The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously granted the Government’s Motion to Dismiss and refused to address whether the trial court calculated the petitioner’s guideline range correctly when it erroneously applied a base level of 34 points instead of the initially calculated base level of 14 points based on Section 2X1.1 of the USSG and refused to review the issue of whether the petitioner’s sentencing guidelines should have been reduced by two point for his role as a minor participant. OPINIONS BELOW On June 25, 2020, the appellant, ERSKIN PERRYMAN, was charged by way of a First Superseding Indictment with the following crimes: felon in possession of a firearm in violation 18 U.S.C. §922(g); conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); maintaining a drug premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856; sex trafficking using force, fraud and coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), and conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). (R. 47, Superseding Indictment, PgID 274-287). On November 6, 2020, Perryman entered a guilty plea, pursuant to a Rule 11 Plea Agreement, to three counts: felon in possession of a firearm (Count 1), 2 conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance (Count 4), and conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking (R 62, Plea Agreement, PgID 331-354) Prior to sentencing, a presentence investigation report was prepared (R. 78, Presentence Investigation Report, PgID 507-533) and on March 3, 2021 an Addendum to the Presentence Report was filed noting the defense objections. (R. 82, Presentence Report Addendum, PgID 550-555). On March 22, 2021 the defense filed a timely Sentencing Memorandum and Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report and the advisory sentencing guideline calculation. (R. 90, Defense Sentencing Memorandum and Objections, PgID 642-658). On March 29, 2021, the petitioner appeared for sentencing at which time, the trial court overruled the defense objections and imposed a sentence committing the appellant to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 120 months on Count 1, 180 months on Count 4, and 180 months on Count 8, all to be served concurrently. (R. 109, Sentencing Hearing Tr., PgID 882-952) A final judgment was entered on March 30, 3021, (R. 93, Judgment, PgID 711-717) and on April 4, 2021, a timely notice of appeal was filed. (R. 98, Notice of Appeal, Page ID 723). 3 On appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the Rule 11 Plea Agreement contained an appeal waiver. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Opinion granting the motion and indicated: “Perryman does not dispute that he waived his appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily. Instead, he argues that his issues on appeal fall outside the scope of his waiver because the district court calculated his guideline range incorrectly and imposed a sentence that exceeded the correct advisory guideline range by fiftyfive months. However, Perryman reserved the right to appeal his sentence only if it exceeded the guideline range calculated by the district court at sentencing, not the range that he calculated himself or some objectively correct range. See Griffin, 854 F.3d at 915 (“Defendant fails to realize . . . that the maximum of the sentencing range that must be exceeded before [he] may appeal his sentence is not the sentencing range associated with the sentence computation that [he] believes is appropriate.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. Beals, 698 F.3d 248, 255 (6th Cir. 2012). Perryman agreed that if he received a sentence below the range calculated by the district court, his waiver of the right to appeal that sentence on any grounds, including challenging the calculation itself, would be e