[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-14486 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cr-00035-MTT-CHW-6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CYRON NORMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(November 15, 2019)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARCUS, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Cyron Norman appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 37 months in 

prison, contending that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively 

Case: 17-14486 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 1 of 6 
2

unreasonable because the district court failed to explain the reasons for imposing it. 

The government moved to enforce an appeal waiver contained in Norman’s plea 

agreement, and we ordered that the motion be carried with the case. We now grant 

the motion.

Norman pleaded guilty to using a cell phone to facilitate the crime of 

possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) 

and 18 U.S.C. § 2. His plea agreement contained an appeal waiver that said in 

relevant part:

The defendant understands that ordinarily [18 U.S.C. § 3742] 

will in certain cases allow for a direct appeal after sentencing followed 

by the Court of Appeals’ limited review of [his] sentence. But once 

this agreement is accepted and sentence is imposed by the District 

Court, defendant by this agreement forever waives any right to an 

appeal or other collateral review of [his] sentence in any court except 

for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, in the event 

that the District Court imposes a sentence that exceeds the advisory 

guideline range, then the defendant shall retain only the right to pursue 

a timely appeal directly to the Court of Appeals after the District Court 

imposes its sentence.

During Norman’s plea colloquy the district court asked him about that 

waiver. The court said:

The plea agreement has a waiver of appeal or waiver of any right 

to seek review of your sentence with some exceptions. Do you 

understand that once you plead guilty and I accept your plea that you 

cannot appeal your sentence or seek review of your sentence except in 

accordance with the plea agreement?

Case: 17-14486 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 2 of 6 
3

Norman said that he did understand, and that he did not have any questions about 

the appeal waiver. The court asked Norman if he was “freely and voluntarily 

giv[ing] up [his] right to appeal or to seek review of [his] sentence except as set 

forth in the plea agreement,” and Norman said yes.

Norman’s Presentence Investigation Report calculated his guidelines range 

to be 37 to 46 months in prison. At the sentence hearing Norman agreed that range 

was correct, but he asked for probation instead of prison time in light of the 

assistance he provided to the government and his role in the drug conspiracy. The 

district court denied his request for a variance and gave him a sentence at the 

bottom of the guidelines range.

1

This is Norman’s appeal. He contends on three different grounds that his

appeal waiver does not prevent him from bringing this appeal. None of those 

grounds has merit.

First, Norman contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his 

right to appeal. We review the voluntariness of an appeal waiver de novo. United 

States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 1993). “To establish the 

waiver’s validity, the government must show either that (1) the district court 

1 Norman uses the terms “departure” and “variance” interchangeably in his response to 

the government’s motion to dismiss. At the sentence hearing he used the word “departure” to 

describe his request, but the government and the court used the word “variance.” A departure 

and a variance are two different things. The more accurate term in these circumstances is 

“variance.”

Case: 17-14486 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 3 of 6 
4

specifically questioned the defendant about the provision during the plea colloquy, 

or (2) it is manifestly clear from the record that the defendant fully understood the 

significance of the waiver.” United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th 

Cir. 2001). Norman argues that the district court failed to explain the waiver to 

him in enough detail. He says that the court did not tell him that he would be 

barred from appealing any contested rulings at sentencing, the court’s calculation 

of his guidelines range, or the court’s denial of his request for a downward 

variance.

We disagree. The court told Norman three times that he was waiving his 

right “to seek review of [his] sentence” except as provided in the plea agreement. 

Norman’s right “to seek review of [his] sentence” naturally includes his right to 

appeal any contested issues underlying his sentence, the court’s calculation of the 

guidelines range, and the denial of his request for a downward variance.

Norman relies on Bushert for his argument, but this case is not like Bushert. 

There the court told the defendant that “under some circumstances” he “may have 

the right to appeal” his sentence. Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1352. It did not tell him 

that he was waiving his right to appeal his sentence except as provided in the plea 

agreement. Id. Because “[i]t [was] not manifestly clear that [the defendant] 

understood he was waiving his appeal rights,” we did not enforce his appeal 

waiver. Id. at 1353. But Norman was told during his plea colloquy that he was 

Case: 17-14486 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 4 of 6 
5

waiving his right to appeal, and he said that he understood the waiver and agreed to 

it freely and voluntarily. For those reasons his waiver is enforceable. See Weaver, 

275 F.3d at 1333 (enforcing waiver where “the waiver provision was referenced 

during [the defendant’s] . . . plea colloquy and [the defendant] agreed that she 

understood the provision and that she entered into it freely and voluntarily”).

Second, Norman contends that an exception to his appeal waiver applies 

because the district court imposed a sentence that was above his guidelines range. 

He argues that by denying his request for a variance, the court effectively 

miscalculated his guidelines range and imposed a sentence that was too high. We 

reject that contention. The appeal waiver allows Norman to appeal if his sentence 

“exceeds the advisory guideline[s] range.” We interpret that exception according 

to its plain meaning. See United States v. Rubbo, 396 F.3d 1330, 1334 (11th Cir. 

2005). In ordinary legal usage, denying a variance is not the same as exceeding the 

guidelines range. A variance is a “sentence set outside the advisory guidelines 

range.” United States v. Irizarry, 458 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2006) (emphasis 

added), aff’d, 553 U.S. 708 (2008).

2

 A variance does not change the otherwise 

applicable range. Norman admitted that his guidelines range was 37 to 46 months

2 The same is true of a departure, if that is what Norman intended to request. See

Irizarry, 458 F.3d at 1212; Downward Departure, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“In 

the federal sentencing guidelines, a court’s discretionary imposition of a sentence more lenient 

than the standard guidelines propose . . . .”) (emphasis added).

Case: 17-14486 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 5 of 6 
6

in prison. The district court did not exceed that range when it sentenced him to 37 

months in prison, so the appeal waiver’s exception for an above-guidelines 

sentence does not apply.

Third, Norman contends that his appeal waiver is ambiguous. We disagree. 

By signing the plea agreement, Norman agreed that he “forever waive[d] any right 

to an appeal or other collateral review of [his] sentence in any court,” with only a 

few exceptions. (Emphasis added.) None of those exceptions applies here. Under 

the plain language of the plea agreement, Norman waived his right to bring this 

appeal.

DISMISSED.

Case: 17-14486 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 6 of 6