[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-15613

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00496-EAK-JSS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 

versus

EVERETT J. TAYLOR, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(June 10, 2021)

Before: WILSON, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 17-15613 Date Filed: 06/10/2021 Page: 1 of 7
2

In June 2017, Everett Taylor agreed to plead guilty to theft of government 

property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, and aggravated identity theft, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. In return, the government agreed to (1) dismiss the 

remaining counts of his indictment, (2) not charge him with any other known 

offenses related to the conduct giving rise to the plea agreement, and (3) 

recommend that Taylor be sentenced within his applicable guideline range. 

Under a section of the plea agreement titled “Forfeiture of Assets,” Taylor 

agreed that, if the district court determined that he had breached that section of the 

agreement, he “may be found ineligible for a reduction in the Guidelines 

calculation for acceptance of responsibility for an obstruction of justice 

enhancement.” Additionally, the plea agreement contains an appeal-waiver 

provision, which prevents him from appealing his sentence absent one of the 

following circumstances: (1) his sentence exceeds his applicable guideline range as 

determined by the court using the Sentencing Guidelines, (2) his sentence exceeds 

the statutory maximum penalty, (3) his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment, 

or (4) if the government appeals, he could appeal. 

Taylor and his trial counsel confirmed that Taylor understood the terms of 

his plea agreement, and confirmed that the plea agreement formed the sole basis 

for his plea. The district court accepted Taylor’s guilty plea. Shortly thereafter, 

the probation officer prepared a presentence investigation report (PSI). The PSI 

USCA11 Case: 17-15613 Date Filed: 06/10/2021 Page: 2 of 7
3

reported that Taylor has been arrested for providing a false name and date of birth, 

and resisting an officer’s attempt to handcuff him. Consequently, the PSI 

increased Taylor’s base-offense level by 2 points for obstruction of justice. The 

PSI also reduced his offense level for acceptance of responsibility, to which the 

government objected. At sentencing, the district court heard from both parties.

The government requested that Taylor be sentenced to 78 months’ and 24 months’ 

imprisonment for his respective convictions, for a total of 102 months 

imprisonment—a sentence at the bottom of his applicable guidelines range. The 

district court adopted the government’s recommendation and sentenced Taylor to 

serve 102 months’ imprisonment. 

Taylor appeals his convictions and total sentence. He argues that the 

government breached an implicit promise in its plea agreement by objecting to the 

offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and failing to object to the 

offense-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, and therefore asks to 

withdraw his guilty plea. He also raises various challenges to his sentence. The 

government moves for summary dismissal of Taylor’s breach-of-plea challenge. It 

also moves to enforce the appeal-waiver provision of his plea agreement with 

respect to Taylor’s challenges to his sentence. 

First, we grant the government’s motion for summary disposition as to 

Taylor’s breach-of-plea argument. We review de novo whether the government 

USCA11 Case: 17-15613 Date Filed: 06/10/2021 Page: 3 of 7
4

has breached a plea agreement. United States v. De La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266, 

1269 (11th Cir. 2008). However, where a defendant argues that the government 

breached his plea agreement for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error 

only. Id. To show plain error, a party must show that (1) there was an error, (2) 

that was plain, (3) that affected his substantial rights, and (4) that “seriously 

affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. 

Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties is 

clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the 

outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is 

frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 

1969).1

Plea agreements “are like contracts and should be interpreted in accord with 

what the parties intended.” United States v. Rubbo, 396 F.3d 1330, 1334 (11th Cir. 

2005). A plea agreement’s unambiguous meaning controls. United States v. 

Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004). We do not infer obligations not 

agreed to by the parties. See United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453, 455 (1985) 

(per curiam) (determining that, by agreeing simply to recommend a particular 

1 Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (holding that all 

decisions of the “old Fifth” Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 

1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit).

USCA11 Case: 17-15613 Date Filed: 06/10/2021 Page: 4 of 7
5

sentence, the government did not also implicitly agree to “enthusiastically” 

recommend a particular sentence or explain its reasons for recommending a 

sentence). “If the parties dispute the meaning of the agreement, we interpret the 

terms of the plea agreement based on objective standards.” United States v. 

Thomas, 487 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). The government is 

bound to any material promises that it makes to induce the defendant to plead 

guilty. Id. at 1360. To evaluate whether the government breached a plea 

agreement, we must “determine the scope of the government’s promises and ask 

whether the government’s actions were inconsistent with what the defendant 

reasonably understood when he entered his guilty plea.” United States v. Sosa, 782 

F.3d 630, 637 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (alteration adopted and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Summary disposition is appropriate here because there is no substantial 

question as to whether the government breached Taylor’s plea agreement. See

Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. The unambiguous language of 

Taylor’s plea agreement bound the government only to recommend a sentence 

within the guideline imprisonment range as it was determined by the district court. 

Copeland, 381 F.3d at 1106. The government fulfilled its promise by

recommending a sentence that was on the low end of Taylor’s guideline range and 

was required by statute. 

USCA11 Case: 17-15613 Date Filed: 06/10/2021 Page: 5 of 7
6

The provision of the plea agreement that stated that Taylor “may be found 

ineligible” for an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and “may 

be eligible” for an offense-level enhancement for obstruction of justice if he 

breached the section of the agreement regarding forfeiture did not create an 

implied obligation on the part of the government. See Benchimol, 471 U.S. at 455. 

That provision did not use language that indicated that the government was bound 

to make any recommendation or objection as to Taylor’s sentence. Thomas, 487 

F.3d at 1360. Rather, it described the sentencing consequences of Taylor’s failure 

to forfeit certain assets, which is not tantamount to an affirmative promise to make 

a sentencing recommendation. Thus, the government’s adherence to the plea 

agreement does not evidence error, let alone plain error. 

We also grant the government’s motion to dismiss Taylor’s challenges to his 

sentence pursuant to the appeal-waiver provision in his plea agreement. Whether a 

defendant waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we revie de novo. 

United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 1993). A sentence-appeal 

waiver is enforceable if it was made knowingly and voluntarily. Id. at 1350. 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. Id. at 1351. 

USCA11 Case: 17-15613 Date Filed: 06/10/2021 Page: 6 of 7
7

“An 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) (per curiam). We presume that the statements made during a 

plea colloquy are true. See United States v. Castro, 736 F.3d 1308,1314 (11th Cir. 

2013) (per curiam).

The record demonstrates that Taylor knowingly and voluntarily waived his 

right to appeal his sentence. The magistrate judge went over the waiver provision 

and its exceptions during the plea colloquy, and Taylor confirmed that he 

understood the appeal waiver, had discussed it with counsel, did not have any 

questions, and was freely and voluntarily giving up his right to appeal his sentence 

unless any of the four limited exceptions applied. Further, none of the exceptions 

to the appeal waiver apply to this appeal. 

Therefore, we GRANT the government’s motion for summary disposition

with respect to Taylor’s breach-of-plea challenge. In addition, we GRANT the 

government’s motion to dismiss Taylor’s challenges to his sentence pursuant to the 

appeal waiver in his plea agreement. 

USCA11 Case: 17-15613 Date Filed: 06/10/2021 Page: 7 of 7