[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11951

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cr-60250-BB-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROLANDO RODRIGUEZ-CAMPANA,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 30, 2020)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, BRANCH, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rolando Rodriguez-Campana pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess five or 

more kilos of cocaine. As part of his plea, Rodriguez-Campana waived his right to 

appeal unless his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum, the sentence was an 

Case: 19-11951 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 1 of 4 
2

upward departure or upward variance from the guidelines range, or the government 

appealed.

During his change of plea hearing, the district court placed RodriguezCampana under oath and questioned him to ensure that his plea was knowingly and 

voluntarily given. He testified to the following. He was forty-six and he was not 

being treated for mental illness. He was not under the influence of drugs or 

alcohol. He did not speak or read English (the hearing was conducted through 

translators), but his attorney was bilingual and had translated the charging 

documents and plea agreement for him and answered all his questions. He was 

pleading guilty of his own free will. And he understood that, as part of his plea 

agreement, he was giving up his right to appeal in all but the listed circumstances.

The Presentence Investigation Report recommended a guidelines range of 70 

to 80 months in prison.1

 Rodriguez-Campana objected to the calculation. The 

court agreed with some, but not all, of his objections and calculated a guidelines 

range of 57 to 71 months in prison. It sentenced him to 45 months in prison. 

Rodriguez-Campana appeals contending that the sentence was procedurally 

and substantively unreasonable. He contends that he did not knowingly and 

voluntarily waive his right to appeal because he did not understand the waiver. He 

1 The statutory minimum sentence was 10 years, but the district court found that 

Rodriguez-Campana satisfied the safety-valve requirements under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

Case: 19-11951 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 2 of 4 
3

notes that this was his first encounter with the court system, so he was not familiar 

with the language and terminology of the plea. And he argues that his “robotic” 

and repetitive answers of “I do” or “I do understand” in his plea colloquy reveal 

that he really did not. The government moves to dismiss his appeal based on the 

waiver. He did not respond to the motion to dismiss.

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. 

Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 1993). An appeal waiver is enforceable if 

it is knowingly and voluntarily given by the defendant. The government can 

establish that a waiver is knowingly and voluntarily given by showing that “the 

district court specifically questioned the defendant about the provision during the 

plea colloquy.” United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th Cir. 2001).

Rodriguez-Campana’s waiver was knowingly and voluntarily given. The 

district court specifically questioned him about his appeal waiver. He testified that 

he knew he was giving up his right to appeal. He testified that his attorney had 

translated the plea agreement for him and answered all of his questions. And he 

testified that he made the plea voluntarily. On appeal he does not argue that any of 

the three exceptions to his waiver applies. 

The fact that Rodriguez-Campana answered “I do” or “I do understand” to 

almost all of the court’s questions makes sense. At the end of each question the 

court asked, “Do you understand that, sir?” And when the court asked a question 

Case: 19-11951 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 3 of 4 
4

he did not understand, Rodriguez-Campana answered “I do not understand that.” 

Repetitive answers to repetitively worded questions do not invalidate an appeal 

waiver.

DISMISSED.

Case: 19-11951 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 4 of 4