Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10017/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10017-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacquez Jarrone Conley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10017

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JACQUEZ JARRONE CONLEY, 

Defendant- Appellant.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00343-MHH-JHE-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10017 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10017

____________________

No. 24-10018

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JACQUEZ JARRONE CONLEY, 

Defendant- Appellant.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00343-MHH-JHE-1

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, AND GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jacquez Jarrone Conley appeals his sentence of 235 months’ 

imprisonment following his conviction for one count of possesUSCA11 Case: 24-10017 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 2 of 6
24-10017 Opinion of the Court 3

sion of child pornography involving a minor who is not yet 12 

years old. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Conley entered into a plea agreement with the government in which he agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence in most circumstances. Mr. Conley reserved the right to 

appeal (1) any sentence in excess of the applicable statutory maximum sentence; (2) any sentence in excess of the Sentencing 

Guidelines range; and (3) a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

In calculating Mr. Conley’s sentence, the probation office 

applied a number of enhancements pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 

2G2.2(b). Prior to and during his sentencing hearing, Mr. Conley 

objected to the enhancements. The district court found that there 

was sufficient evidence to maintain a five-level enhancement pursuant to § 2G2.2(b)(5), established the Sentencing Guidelines

range of 235-240 months, and imposed a 235-month sentence.

At the sentencing hearing, the district court orally pronounced that Mr. Conley would “have to comply with the standard conditions of supervised release of record in [the] court” as 

well as a number “special conditions” that it enumerated. But the 

court did not orally enumerate Condition 14, which Mr. Conley 

now challenges. Instead, it stated: “[T]here are several specific 

conditions that our court imposes for sex offenses. The Court will 

impose those conditions, and they will all be in the judgment and 

will be available for your review with your probation officer 

when you're released from prison.”

USCA11 Case: 24-10017 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10017

On appeal, Mr. Conley argues (1) that his sentence focused 

on his treatment needs in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 

U.S. 319 (2011); (2) that the government failed to meet its burden 

of proving a “pattern of activity” under § 2G2.2(b)(5), and therefore the district court erred in rejecting his objection to the fivelevel enhancement; and (3) that the district court failed to pronounce one of the discretionary conditions for his supervised release—Condition 14—in violation of his due process rights.

A defendant who has waived his right to appeal his sentence is generally barred from appealing contested issues underlying his sentence, “such as the court’s calculation of the Guideline 

range or any rulings at sentencing.” United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 

1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2020). Challenges related to supervised release conditions are also generally barred by a valid appeal waiver. 

See United States v. Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058, 1067 n.10 (11th Cir. 

2021). We recently held, for example, that a claim that the district 

court violated due process by not orally announcing or describing 

a condition of supervised release is covered by an appeal waiver. 

See United States v. Read, 118 F.4th 1317, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 2024).

If valid, “[a]n appeal waiver includes the waiver of the right 

to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error.” 

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

And a defendant is “free to bargain away his right to raise constitutional issues[.]” United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 1297 

(11th Cir. 2006). 

USCA11 Case: 24-10017 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 4 of 6
24-10017 Opinion of the Court 5

As a threshold matter we must determine whether Mr. 

Conley’s appeal waiver was valid.

We review the validity of a sentence appeal waiver de novo. 

See King v. United States, 41 F.4th 1363, 1366 (11th Cir. 2022), cert. 

denied, 143 S. Ct. 1771 (2023). A waiver will be enforced if it was 

made knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Bushert, 997 

F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993). To establish that the waiver 

was made knowingly and voluntarily, the government must show 

either that: (1) the district court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver during the plea colloquy; or (2) the record makes clear that the defendant otherwise understood the full 

significance of the waiver. See id. The “touchstone” for this determination “is whether it was clearly conveyed to the defendant 

that he was giving up his right to appeal under most circumstances.” Boyd, 975 F.3d at 1192 (internal quotation marks, alterations, 

and emphasis omitted) (quoting Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1352–53).

The record demonstrates that Mr. Conley’s sentence appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. During the change of

plea hearing, the district court reviewed the advice of rights certification with Mr. Conley, then verified that he had initialed each 

page of the plea agreement and had signed the agreement. The 

court stated that it would rely on the facts of the agreement when 

determining his sentence, and Mr. Conley affirmed that he understood this. The court then reviewed the appeal waiver provisions 

of the agreement with Mr. Conley and explained that the waiver 

of appeal would bar him from challenging “most everything havUSCA11 Case: 24-10017 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 24-10017

ing to do with sentencing.” The court also noted the three exceptions to the appeal waiver. Mr. Conley acknowledged that he understood and that he was voluntarily giving up his right to appeal

his sentence as set forth in the plea agreement. The court then 

verified that he understood the discussion and that he wanted to 

change his plea to guilty. The court found that Mr. Conley was 

acting voluntarily and adjudged him guilty.

We conclude that Mr. Conley’s appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary because the district court expressly questioned 

him about the appeal waiver and the record supports a finding 

that he understood the appeal waiver. See Bushert, 997 F.2d at 

1351. Mr. Conley’s three challenges—to the sentencing procedure, the sentencing enhancements, and the supervised release 

condition—are encompassed by the terms of his appeal waiver. 

Those challenges do not fall within any of the listed exceptions, as 

the sentence imposed did not exceed the applicable statutory 

maximum or the Sentencing Guidelines range; nor does Mr. Conley claim ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore dismiss 

the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

USCA11 Case: 24-10017 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 6 of 6