Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-15180/USCOURTS-ca11-19-15180-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Terrance Dwayne Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-15180

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00053-WS-B-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

TERRANCE DWAYNE WILLIAMS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

(May 22, 2020)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal 

waiver in Williams’s plea agreement is GRANTED. As the record reflects, 

USCA11 Case: 19-15180 Date Filed: 05/22/2020 Page: 1 of 3
2

Williams knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. 

During the plea colloquy, the court specifically questioned him about the waiver, 

and in describing it, the court told Williams that he was “waiving [his] right to 

appeal [his] conviction and sentence either by filing a direct appeal or a collateral 

appeal, with the following limited exceptions: . . . punishment in excess of the 

statutory maximum, any punishment constituting an upward departure of the 

guideline range, and any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Williams 

acknowledged that he understood the waiver’s terms. Thus, the record establishes 

that Williams knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the sentence appeal waiver. See

United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that a 

sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily).

Further, no exception to the appeal waiver applies. Williams’s 151-month 

prison sentence did not exceed the applicable guideline range, and it did not exceed 

the statutory maximum penalty. Williams also has not raised any issues of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Moreover, Williams’s counsel filed an Anders

brief conceding that the appeal waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily, thus 

barring his appeal. Finally, although Williams objected to his career-offender 

status during sentencing, an enforceable appeal waiver is not made unenforceable 

by issues disputed at sentencing and waives the right to appeal debatable legal 

USCA11 Case: 19-15180 Date Filed: 05/22/2020 Page: 2 of 3
3

issues. See United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 1296 (11th Cir. 2006); 

United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss Williams’s 

appeal pursuant to the sentence appeal waiver.

DISMISSED.

USCA11 Case: 19-15180 Date Filed: 05/22/2020 Page: 3 of 3