Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13191/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13191-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dyanta Samuels
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13191

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DYANTA SAMUELS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cr-00063-RSB-CLR-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-13191 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13191

Before WILSON, LAGOA, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute 

heroin and fentanyl, Dyanta Samuels appeals the district court’s 

imposition of special conditions of supervised release as part of his 

sentence. On appeal, Samuels argues that at sentencing the district 

court violated his due process rights by paraphrasing rather than 

reciting the special conditions of supervision that it included in the 

written judgment. In response, the government contends 

Samuels’s procedural challenge to the imposition of his sentence is 

barred by his sentence-appeal waiver in his plea agreement. After 

review, we agree and dismiss Samuels’s appeal.

In his plea agreement, Samuels agreed to waive his right to 

file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence “on any ground” 

except an appeal of his sentence if: (1) his sentence exceeded the 

statutory maximum; (2) his sentence exceeded his advisory 

guidelines range as established by the district court at sentencing; 

or (3) the government appealed his sentence. 

Supervised release is one component of the sentence 

imposed by the district court. United States v. Hamilton, 66 F.4th 

1267, 1275 (11th Cir. 2023). Thus, absent an applicable exception, 

an enforceable sentence-appeal waiver bars a challenge to the 

conditions of supervised release. United States v. Cordero, 7 F.4th 

1058, 1067 n.10 (11th Cir. 2021). This includes a due process 

challenge like the one Samuels raises here. See United States v. Read, 

USCA11 Case: 23-13191 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 2 of 4
23-13191 Opinion of the Court 3

118 F.4th 1317, 1319, 1321-23 (11th Cir. 2024) (concluding that the 

defendant’s due process challenge to “the way” the district court 

imposed supervised release conditions at sentencing—failing to 

describe in detail each standard condition contained in the written 

judgment—was a challenge to his sentence and was barred by his 

sentence-appeal waiver). 

Here, none of the circumstances under which Samuels 

reserved his right to appeal his sentence exists. Samuels’s 

149-month sentence does not exceed either the applicable statutory 

maximum of 20 years, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), or the 

advisory guidelines range of 121 to 151 months’ imprisonment the 

district court calculated at sentencing. Nor has the government 

appealed Samuels’s sentence. Therefore, if enforceable, Samuels’s 

sentence-appeal waiver precludes review of his due process 

challenge to the imposition of special conditions of supervised 

release.1

A sentence-appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made 

knowingly and voluntarily. United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 

1351 (11th Cir. 1993). On appeal, Samuels does not argue that his 

sentence-appeal waiver was not knowing or voluntary. 

In any event, the record shows that Samuels knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. During 

Samuels’s plea hearing, the district court specifically reviewed with 

1 We review the validity of a sentence appeal waiver de novo. United States v. 

Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 1993). 

USCA11 Case: 23-13191 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13191

him the sentence-appeal waiver, including the three limited 

exceptions. In response, Samuels indicated that he understood. 

Samuels also confirmed that he had read, reviewed with his 

attorney, and understood the plea agreement before he signed it. 

Because the district court specifically questioned Samuels 

about the sentence-appeal waiver, the waiver is valid and 

enforceable. See Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1352. And because none of 

the exceptions in the sentence-appeal waiver apply, we dismiss his 

appeal.

DISMISSED.

USCA11 Case: 23-13191 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 4 of 4