[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 40 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cr-0 02 95 -J HH-HGD-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLES EDWARD COX, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 20 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, HULL andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ch arl es EdwardCo x app eal s h is co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of afir earm as a Case: 12-10408 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 1 of 3co nv ic te d fe lo n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). He arg ue s t ha t h is ap pe al

waiv er, an d t he refo re h is gu il ty ple a, was no t kno win g a ndvo lu nt ary be cau se th e di st ric t co urt d idno t ex pl ai n t o h im th at , th ro ug h the ap pe al waiv er i n h is pl ea ag reem en t, h e was waiv in g h is rig htto m ak e a cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. He su gg es ts th atth is requi res us to setasi de hi s co nv ic ti on . Ord in ari ly, we rev ie w th e v ol un ta rin es s o f a g ui lt y pl ea, as well as wh ethe r a de fen da ntkn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly w ai ve d h is rig htto ap pe al , de n ov o. Un it ed St at es v. Bu sh ert , 99 7 F .2d13 43 , 13 52 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Howev er, i f a d efen da nt fai ls to ob ject t o ade fic ie nc y

in th e p le a co ll oq uy, w e rev ie w on ly for p la in erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo ria rty, 429 F.3d10 12 , 10 18 –1 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . The rec or d in th is cas e sh ows th atCo x d idno t b rin g t o t he di stric t co urt’s at te nt io n h is co nc ernab ou t h is un de rs ta nd in g o f th e ap pe al waiv er. Alt ho ug h h e d idwrit e a le tt er t o the di stric t co urt af te r hi s g ui lt y

pl ea, an d t he co urt co ns tru edth atfil in g a s a m ot io n t o wi th dr aw th e p le a, th atdo cu m en t d idno t m en ti on th e al le ge d fa il ur e on th e p artof the di st ric t co urt t o e ns ur e th atCo x was aware o f th e fu ll si gn ifi can ce o f th e ap pe al waiv er. Thu s, Co x’s cl ai m is subjec t t o p la in erro r rev ie w. To p rev ai l u nd er thi s s tand ard , a de fen da ntm us t s ho w th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d a n e rro r th at , am on g o th er thi ng s, af fect edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. 2 Case: 12-10408 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 2 of 3Uni te d S ta te s v . Bro wn, 5 86 F.3d13 42 , 13 45 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). In t he co nt ex t o f

anall eg edde fic ie nc y

in th e p le a co ll oq uy, thi s “ m ean s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty th at , bu t fo r th e err or , [th e d efen da nt ] wou ldno t h av e en te redth e p le a.” Id . (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . Here, we ne edno t ad dr es s t he qu es ti onof wh ethe r th e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly ens ur edth atCo x was aware o f th e fu ll si gn ifi can ce o f th e ap pe al waiv er. Eve n i f we were t o c on cl ud e th atitdi d n ot , Cox ha s n otst at edth at he m ig htno t h av e p le ad edgu il ty. Co x h as th us fai le d t o d em on strat e th athi s co nv ic ti on m

us t b e v acat ed . Co x s ug ge st s i n c lo si ng th atth e ap pe al waiv er s ho ul d b e se ve red . Bu t t he on ly argu m en t t ha t Co x h as m ad e to ch al le ng e h is co nv ic ti on in th is di rectap pe al is th athi s p le a o f gu il ty w as no t kno win g andvo lu nt ary. The go ve rn m en t h as no t as se rte d tha t t hi s cl ai m

is ba rredby the ap pe al waiv er; in st ead , itha s ackno wled ge d t ha t s uc h acla im can be rai se d. Thu s, t he re re m ai ns no cla im in th is di rectap pe al th atth e g ov ern m en t ei th er co ul d s ay or h as sai d i s b arre d b y

th e ap pe al waiv er. Cf. Bu sh ert , 99 7 F .2dat 1 35 3– 54 (se ve rin g t he waiv er an d ad jud ic at in g t he m eri ts of t he de fen da nt ’s rem ai ni ng cla im s o f erro r). Thi s b ei ng th e cas e, itis no t n eces sa ry for us to de ci de whet he r th e wai ve r sh ou ldbe sev ered . Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt. AFFIRMED. 3 Case: 12-10408 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 3 of 3