### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 1 0

- 2 0 0 4 3

S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.

M A R C U S E U G E N E J A C O B S

,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s

B e f o r e H I G G I N B O T H A M

, S M I T H

, a n d H A Y N E S

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s :

P E R C U R I A M :

F e d e r a l p r i s o n e r M a r c u s E u g e n e J a c o b s p l e d g u i l t y t o o n e c o u n t o f

p o s s e s s i n g s t o l e n m a i l i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 7 0 8

. I n h i s s i g n e d p l e a

a g r e e m e n t

, J a c o b s g e n e r a l l y w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o a p p e a l h i s s e n t e n c e b u t

p r e s e r v e d h i s r i g h t t o a p p e a l a n u p w a r d d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e S e n t e n c i n g

G u i d e l i n e s n o t r e q u e s t e d b y t h e G o v e r n m e n t

. A t s e n t e n c i n g

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

i m p o s e d a n u p w a r d v a r i a n c e f r o m t h e G u i d e l i n e s n o t r e q u e s t e d b y t h e

G o v e r n m e n t

. J a c o b s n o w c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e u p w a r d

- d e p a r t u r e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e

w a i v e r a l l o w s h i m t o c h a l l e n g e h i s s e n t e n c e o n a p p e a l

. B e c a u s e s e n t e n c i n g U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t



### F I L E D

March 15 , 20 11

Lyle W . Cayce

Clerk Case: 10-20043 Document: 00511411638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2011N o

. 1 0

- 2 0 0 4 3

d e p a r t u r e s a r e d i s t i n c t f r o m s e n t e n c i n g v a r i a n c e s

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e w a i v e r

b a r s t h i s a p p e a l a n d g r a n t t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

.

I

.

J a c o b s p l e d g u i l t y t o o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s i n g s t o l e n m a i l i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8

U

. S

. C

. § 1 7 0 8

. I n e x c h a n g e f o r s e v e r a l c o n c e s s i o n s f r o m t h e G o v e r n m e n t

, J a c o b s

a g r e e d t o w a i v e h i s r i g h t t o a p p e a l h i s s e n t e n c e

. I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t

, t h e w a i v e r

o f a p p e a l p r o v i d e s :

T h e d e f e n d a n t w a i v e s t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l t h e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d o r

t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t w a s d e t e r m i n e d

. T h e d e f e n d a n t m a y a p p e a l

o n l y ( a ) t h e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d a b o v e t h e s t a t u t o r y m a x i m u m ; o r ( b )

a n u p w a r d d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s

, w h i c h h a d

n o t b e e n r e q u e s t e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a s s e t f o r t h i n T i t l e 1 8

U

. S

. C

. § 3 6 4 2 ( b )

.

A t t h e R u l e 1 1 h e a r i n g

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y d i s c u s s e d t h e w a i v e r

- o f

a p p e a l p r o v i s i o n w i t h J a c o b s

. T h e c o u r t a c c u r a t e l y e x p l a i n e d t h a t J a c o b s w a s

w a i v i n g h i s r i g h t t o a p p e a l a n y t h i n g a b o u t h i s s e n t e n c e u n l e s s o n e o f t h e t w o

e x c e p t i o n s a p p l i e d

. T h e c o u r t a l s o e x p l a i n e d t h a t J a c o b s ’ s s e n t e n c e h a d n o t y e t

b e e n d e t e r m i n e d

, t h a t t h e c o u r t w a s n o t b o u n d b y t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s s e n t e n c i n g

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n

, a n d t h a t J a c o b s w o u l d n o t b e a b l e t o c h a n g e h i s p l e a e v e n i f

t h e c o u r t i m p o s e d a l o n g e r s e n t e n c e t h a n J a c o b s a n t i c i p a t e d

. J a c o b s s t a t e d o n

t h e r e c o r d t h a t h e h a d r e a d a n d u n d e r s t o o d t h e t e r m s o f h i s p l e a a g r e e m e n t

,

t h a t h e w i s h e d t o g i v e u p t h e r i g h t s h e w a s w a i v i n g

, a n d t h a t n o o n e h a d f o r c e d

o r t h r e a t e n e d h i m t o p l e a d g u i l t y

.

A t s e n t e n c i n g

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c a l c u l a t e d t h e a d v i s o r y G u i d e l i n e s

s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e a s f o u r t o t e n m o n t h s

. T h e G o v e r n m e n t r e c o m m e n d e d a

s e n t e n c e o f s e v e n m o n t h s

. H o w e v e r

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o p t e d t o v a r y u p w a r d l y

u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a )

. C i t i n g J a c o b s ’ s e x t e n s i v e c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y

, t h e 1

The dist ric t cour t des cri bed its de cis ion as an “ upw ard d epa rtu re, ” but it ci ted to 18 1

U. S. C. § 3553( a)( 1) in d o i n g so and late r clar ifi ed in the Sta tem ent of Reas ons that it wa s

im pos i n g a se nten ce outs ide the advis ory se nten cing- guide lines sys tem

, not dep art ing fr om

the advis ory guide line range for r eas ons aut hori zed by t he guide lines t hem se lves

.

2 Case: 10-20043 Document: 00511411638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2011N o

. 1 0

- 2 0 0 4 3

f a i l u r e o f p r i o r s e n t e n c e s t o d e t e r J a c o b s f r o m f u r t h e r c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t

, a h i g h

r i s k o f r e c i d i v i s m

, a n d t h e n e e d t o p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s e n t e n c e d

J a c o b s t o t h i r t y

- s i x m o n t h s i n p r i s o n

. O n a p p e a l

, J a c o b s s e e k s t o c h a l l e n g e t h e

r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f a s e n t e n c e t h a t i s 2 6 0 p e r c e n t l o n g e r t h a n t h e h i g h e n d o f t h e

G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e

.

I I

.

W e d e t e r m i n e d e n o v o w h e t h e r t h e w a i v e r

- o f

- a p p e a l p r o v i s i o n i n J a c o b s ’ s

p l e a a g r e e m e n t b a r s t h i s a p p e a l

. A d e f e n d a n t m a y w a i v e h i s s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o 2

a p p e a l a s p a r t o f a v a l i d p l e a a g r e e m e n t

, “ p r o v i d e d ( 1 ) h i s o r h e r w a i v e r i s

k n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a r y

, a n d ( 2 ) t h e w a i v e r a p p l i e s t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a t h a n d

,

b a s e d o n t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t

. ” 3

F o r a w a i v e r o f

a p p e a l t o b e k n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a r y

, “ [ a ] d e f e n d a n t m u s t

k n o w t h a t h e h a d a ‘ r i g h t t o a p p e a l h i s s e n t e n c e a n d t h a t h e w a s g i v i n g u p t h a t

r i g h t

. ’ ” T h e d e f e n d a n t a l s o m u s t u n d e r s t a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e w a i v e r

.

4 5

T h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s w a i v e r i s u n k n o w i n g a n d i n v o l u n t a r y w h e r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

e x p l a i n s t h e t e r m s o f t h e a p p e l l a t e w a i v e r i n c o r r e c t l y o r n o t a t a l l

. I f t h e 6 7

d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c c u r a t e l y e x p l a i n s t h e t e r m s a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e w a i v e r o f

See, e .g.

, Uni ted Sta tes v. Ba ym on

, 312 F.3d 725

, 727 (5t h Cir

. 2002)

. 2

Uni ted Sta tes v. Pa lm er

, 456 F.3d 484

, 488 (5t h Cir

. 2006)

. 3

U n i te d States v. Porti ll o

, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5t h Cir. 1994) (quo ting Uni ted States v. 4

Me la ncon

, 972 F.2d 566

, 567 (5t h Cir

. 1992) ).

Uni ted States v. Baty

, 980 F.2d 977, 979 (5t h Cir. 1992) (“ A def enda nt’ s wa iver of her 5

right to app eal is not info rm ed if the def enda nt doe s not kn ow the pos sib le cons equenc es of her

dec isi on. ”)

.

See, e. g.

, Uni ted States v. De lga do- Ram ir ez

, 236 F. App ’x 983, 984 (5t h Cir. 2007) (p er 6

cur iam ) (unp ublis hed)

.

F E D

. R. C R I M

. P. 11(b )( 1)( N) ; see

, e. g

. , Uni ted States v. Robi nson

, 187 F.3d 516, 518 7

(5t h Cir. 1999) (“[ A] def enda nt’ s w aiver of her right to appeal des erves and, ind eed , req uire s

the sp ecia l a tte ntio n o f the dis tri ct cour t. ’” (quo ting Baty

, 980 F.2d at 979 ))

.

3 Case: 10-20043 Document: 00511411638 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2011N o

. 1 0

- 2 0 0 4 3

a p p e a l a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t s t a t e s o n t h e r e c o r d t h a t h e u n d e r s t a n d s t h e m

, t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s l a t e r c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h e d i d n o t r e a l l y u n d e r s t a n d w i l l n o t i n v a l i d a t e

t h e w a i v e r

. H e r e

, J a c o b s c o n c e d e s t h a t h e s i g n e d t h e w a i v e r k n o w i n g l y a n d

8

v o l u n t a r i l y

, a n d t h e r e c o r d o f t h e R u l e 1 1 h e a r i n g i n d i c a t e s t h i s c o n c e s s i o n w a s

a w i s e o n e

.

T o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a w a i v e r o f a p p e a l a p p l i e s t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a t

h a n d

, w e a s c e r t a i n t h e o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g o f t h e w a i v e r p r o v i s i o n

. W e d o s o 9

u s i n g “ n o r m a l p r i n c i p l e s o f c o n t r a c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

, ” s u b j e c t t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n 1 0

t h a t “ [ g ] i v e n t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e r i g h t s t h e y i n v o l v e

, w e c o n s t r u e a p p e a l

w a i v e r s n a r r o w l y

, a n d a g a i n s t t h e g o v e r n m e n t

. ” W h i l e “ a n y a m b i g u i t y m u s t 1 1

b e c o n s t r u e d i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s r i g h t t o a p p e a l

, ” w e w i l l n o t r e a d 1 2

a m b i g u i t y i n t o a n a g r e e m e n t i n w h i c h n o n e r e a d i l y m a n i f e s t s i t s e l f : “ I n t h e

a b s e n c e o f

e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a g r e e m e n t i n t e n d e d [ ] a s p e c i a l i z e d

,

n o n

- n a t u r a l d e f

i n i t i o n

, w e a p p l y t h e t e r m ’ s u s u a l a n d o r d i n a r y m e a n i n g

. ” 1 3

H e r e

, t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n o f t h e w a i v e r

- o f

- a p p e a l p r o v i s i o n i n J a c o b s ’ s

p l e a a g r e e m e n t o n l y a l l o w s h i m t o a p p e a l a n “ u p w a r d d e p a r t u r e ” n o t r e q u e s t e d

b y t h e G o v e r n m e n t

. “ ‘ D e p a r t u r e ’ i s a t e r m o f a r t u n d e r t h e G u i d e l i n e s a n d

r e f e r s o n l y t o n o n

- G u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e s i m p o s e d u n d e r t h e f r a m e w o r k s e t o u t i n

See, e. g.

, Uni ted States v. Smi th

, No. 09-5 0343, 2010 WL 5185499

, at *2 (5t h Cir. De c. 8

15, 2010) (p er cur iam ) (unp ublis hed) ; Uni ted States v. De Cay

, 359 F. App ’x 514, 515–16 (5th

Cir. 201 0) (p er cur iam ) (unp ublis hed)

.

See, e. g.

, Uni ted States v. Cortez

, 413 F.3d 502, 503 (5t h Cir. 2005) (p er cur iam ) (“ The 9

language in the app ellat e wa iver mus t be aff ord ed its plai n me aning in acc ord wi th the inte nt

of the par tie s at the tim e t he ple a agr eem ent wa s execut ed. ”)

.

Uni ted States v M

cKi nney , 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5t h Cir. 2005) ; see al so United States 1 0

v. Bond

, 414 F.3d 542, 545 (5t h Cir. 2005) (“ We mus t inte rp ret the ple a agree me nt lik e a

cont rac t, in ac cor d wi th wh at the par tie s inte nded .” ).

Pal me r

, 456 F.3d at 488

. 1 1

Uni ted Sta tes v. H

ar ri s

, 434 F.3d 767

, 770 (5t h Cir

. 2005)

. 1 2

Bond

, 414 F.3d at 545

. 1 3

4 Case: 10-20043 Document: 00511411638 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/15/2011N o

. 1 0

- 2 0 0 4 3

t h e G u i d e l i n e s

. ” T h e G u i d e l i n e s s e t o u t a t h r e e

- p a r t f r a m e w o r k f o r t h e 1 4

i m p o s i t i o n o f s e n t e n c e s : t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ( 1 ) c a l c u l a t e s t h e a d v i s o r y s e n t e n c i n g

r a n g e ; ( 2 ) c o n s i d e r s t h e s p e c i f i c o f f e n d e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d g r o u n d s f o r

d e p a r t u r e e n u m e r a t e d i n t h e G u i d e l i n e s ; a n d ( 3 ) w e i g h s t h e a p p l i c a b l e f a c t o r s

i n 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a s a w h o l e

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s a u t h o r i t y t o i m p o s e a 1 5

d e p a r t u r e e m a n a t e s f r o m 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) a n d

, i n t u r n

, i n C h a p t e r 5

,

P a r t K o f t h e G u i d e l i n e s

. U n d e r F e d e r a l R u l e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 3 2 ( h )

, t h e 1 6

d i s t r i c t c o u r t c a n n o t i m p o s e a d e p a r t u r e u n l e s s i t f i r s t n o t i f

i e s t h e p a r t i e s t h a t

i t i s c o n t e m p l a t i n g d o i n g s o

. W h e n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i m p o s e s a n u p w a r d 1 7

d e p a r t u r e

, i t m u s t e x p l a i n i t s r e a s o n s f o r d o i n g s o i n S e c t i o n V o f t h e s t a n d a r d

f o r m S t a t e m e n t o f R e a s o n s

.

B y c o n t r a s t

, i f a f

t e r c o m p l e t i n g t h e G u i d e l i n e s ’ t h r e e

- s t e p p r o c e s s t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t “ i m p o s e s a s e n t e n c e t h a t i s o u t s i d e t h e g u i d e l i n e s f r a m e w o r k

, s u c h

a s e n t e n c e i s c o n s i d e r e d a ‘ v a r i a n c e ’

. ” T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s a u t h o r i t y t o i m p o s e 1 8

a v a r i a n c e i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y a n d s t e m s f r o m 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a )

. R u l e 3 2 ( h ) ’ s 1 9

Iriz ar ry v. U

nited State s

, 553 U. S. 708

, 714 (200 8). 1 4

See U. S. S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E L I N E S M A N U A L § 1 B1.1( a)–( c) ( 2010)

. 1 5

See id. § 5K 2.0( a). 1 6

Iriz ar ry

, 553 U. S. at 709–10 (“ [B] efo re the c o u r t m a y dep art fr om the app lica ble 1 7

se nten cing range on a ground not ide ntif ied for dep art ure eit her in the pr es ente nce rep ort or

in a p art y’s p rehe aring s ubm iss ion, the cour t mus t give the par tie s reas onable no tic e t hat it

is cont em plat ing s uch a d epa rtu re. ” (quo ting F E D

. R. C R I M P. 32(h )) ).

U .S

. S E N T E N C I N G G U I D E L I N E S M A N U A L § 1 B1.1 cm t. bac kgr ound ( 2010)

. 1 8

See, e .g.

, Uni ted Sta tes v. H err era -G ar duno

, 519 F.3d 526

, 530–31 (5t h Cir

. 2008)

. 1 9

5 Case: 10-20043 Document: 00511411638 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/15/2011N o

. 1 0

- 2 0 0 4 3

n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t d o e s n o t a p p l y t o v a r i a n c e s

. A n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e x p l a i n s 2 0

i t s r e a s o n s f

o r i m p o s i n g a v a r i a n c e i n S e c t i o n V I o f t h e S t a t e m e n t o f R e a s o n s

.

I n s h o r t

, a n u p w a r d d e p a r t u r e a n d a n u p w a r d v a r i a n c e a r e n o t o n e a n d

t h e s a m e

. T h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t a p p l i e s o n l y t o “ d e p a r t u r e s

, ” a n d t h e t e r m

“ d e p a r t u r e ” h a s a n o r d i n a r y

, w e l l

- s e t t l e d m e a n i n g i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o n t e x t

.

T h a t m e a n i n g d o e s n o t e x t e n d t o v a r i a n c e s s u c h a s t h e o n e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

i m p o s e d h e r e

. J a c o b s d o e s n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d t h e t e r m

“ d e p a r t u r e ” t o c a r r y a n a t y p i c a l o r s p e c i a l i z e d m e a n i n g w h e n t h e y i n c l u d e d i t i n

h i s p l e a a g r e e m e n t

. T h e r u l e t h a t w e c o n s t r u e p l e a a g r e e m e n t s n a r r o w l y a n d

a g a i n s t t h e G o v e r n m e n t d o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e u s t o i g n o r e t h e s e t t l e d m e a n i n g s o f

t h e t e r m s u s e d i n s u c h a g r e e m e n t s

. 2 1

J a c o b s c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e u p w a r d

- d e p a r t u r e e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e s h e r e b e c a u s e

i t a l l o w s h i m t o a p p e a l “ u p w a r d d e p a r t u r e s f r o m t h e G u i d e l i n e s

, ” w h i c h h e s a y s

a c t u a l l y d e s c r i b e s v a r i a n c e s

, w h i l e d e p a r t u r e s a r e b e s t d e s c r i b e d a s “ u p w a r d

d e p a r t u r e s u n d e r t h e G u i d e l i n e s

. ” T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s s i m p l y n o t s u p p o r t e d b y

t h e c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e s a n d p r e c e d e n t

. I n a d d i t i o n

, J a c o b s ’ s r e a d i n g w o u l d 2 2

Iriz ar ry , 553 U. S. at 716; Uni ted States v. Meji a- Hu erta , 480 F.3d 713, 722–23 ( 5th 2 0

Cir. 2007)

. See gener al ly Uni ted Sta tes v. V am pi re Na tion

, 451 F.3d 189, 197 (3d Cir. 2006)

(“ Booke r cont em plat es that the dis tri ct cour t wi ll im pos e a dis cre tio nary se nten c e aft er

cons ide rat ion of t h e a d v i so ry Gu ide lines

, the ground s rais ed by couns el, the def enda nt’ s

alloc utio n, victi m st atem ents

, othe r evide nce, and the fac tor s se t for th in § 35 5 3 ( a )

. Booke r

doe s not cont em plat e t hat the cour t wi ll so me how ar rive at its se nten ce pr ior to se nten cing,

and requ iring advanc e noti ce of ‘any ground ’ beyond the fac tor s se t for th in § 3 553( a) wo uld

undo ubte dly pr ove to be unw ork able. ” (f oot note and in ter nal cit atio n o mi tte d) ).

Cf. Uni ted States v. Gu iny ar d

, 149 F. App ’x 279, 2 8 1 (5t h Cir. 2005) (p er cur iam ) 2 1

(unp ublis hed) (ho ldi ng that a wa iver- of- app eal pr ovis ion that cont ained the sam e tw o

excep tio ns as Jaco bs’ s did not autho rize the def enda nt to app eal the fac t that his se nten ce wa s

im pos ed unde r the pr e- Booke r man dat ory Gu ide lines regim e); Uni ted States v. Esco bar

, 78 F.

App ’x 9 35, 937 (5t h Cir

. 2003) (unpu blis hed) (hold ing that a wa iver- of- app eal pr ovis ion that

cont ained the s ame two except ions as Jacob s’ s did not authori ze the defen dant to appeal the

dis tri ct cour t’s d ecis ion to app ly a six- level se nten ce enhanc em ent)

.

In fac t, Jaco bs’ s pos itio n mo st clos ely mi rro rs the pos itio n advoc ated by the 2 2

dis se nting Jus tic es —and reject ed by the ma jorit y—in Iriz ar ry

. See 553 U. S. at 718 (Breyer

, J., d iss enti ng).

6 Case: 10-20043 Document: 00511411638 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/15/2011N o

. 1 0

- 2 0 0 4 3

h a v e t h e a b s u r d c o n s e q u e n c e o f a l l o w t o h i m t o a p p e a l v a r i a n c e s

— s i n c e t h e y a r e

d e p a r t u r e s “ f

r o m ” t h e G u i d e l i n e s

— b u t n o t d e p a r t u r e s

, s i n c e t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t

d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a p r o v i s i o n a l l o w i n g a p p e a l s f r o m d e p a r t u r e s “ u n d e r ” t h e

G u i d e l i n e s

. W e f

i n d i t w h o l l y i m p l a u s i b l y t h a t t h e p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d t h i s o u t c o m e

w h e n t h e y c h o s e t o u s e t h e t e r m “ d e p a r t u r e ” i n t h e w a i v e r p r o v i s i o n

.

I f t h e p a r t i e s h a d i n t e n d e d t o a l l o w J a c o b s t o a p p e a l a n y s e n t e n c e t h a t

e x c e e d e d t h e h i g h e n d o f t h e G u i d e l i n e s ’ r e c o m m e n d e d s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e

, t h e y

c o u l d h a v e d r a f

t e d t h e w a i v e r o f a p p e a l t o s a y s o

. J a c o b s m i g h t n o w w i s h t h a t 2 3

t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t w e r e w o r d e d d i f f e r e n t l y

, b u t “ a n a g r e e m e n t s h o u l d b e

e n f o r c e d a s w r i t t e n

, w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o w h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s c o n t r a c t e d w i s e l y

. ” 2 4

W e h o l d t h a t t h e u p w a r d

- d e p a r t u r e e x c e p t i o n t o J a c o b s ’ s w a i v e r o f a p p e a l d i d

n o t a u t h o r i z e h i m t o a p p e a l t h e u p w a r d v a r i a n c e h e r e c e i v e d a t s e n t e n c i n g

. 2 5

I I I

.

See Uni ted States v. Jac kson

, 523 F.3 d 2 3 4

, 2 4 2 n .5 (3d Cir. 2008) (“ Waiver s 2 3

fr equent ly cont ain pr ovis ions allow ing a def enda nt to app eal if

. . . ther e is an err oneo us

upw ard dep art ure, an unrea so nable upw ard varianc e, or the sente nce unreas onably exceeds

the advis ory Gu ide lines range

. . . .” ); see al so, e. g.

, Uni ted States v. Ma teo

, No. 10-1 1165, 2011

WL 411438, at *1 (11t h Cir. Feb. 9, 2011) (p er cur iam ) (unp ublis h e d ) (“ The ple a agree me nt

cont ained a se nten ce app eal wa iver that w aived M ateo ’s r ight to app eal his s ente nce unles s

the se nten ce

. . . is the res ult of an upw ar d d e p a r tur e and/ or a varianc e fr om the guide line

range that the Court es tabl ish es at se nten cing. ” (int erna l quot atio n mar ks om itt ed) ); Uni ted

States v. Shaw aka

, No. 09-4 580, 2011 WL 288524, at *4 (4t h Cir. Jan. 31, 2011) (p er cur iam )

(unp ublis hed) ; Uni ted Sta tes v. Mc Carty

, 612 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8t h Cir. ), cer t. deni ed

, 131 S.

Ct. 673 ( 2010) ; Uni ted Sta tes v. A li

, 384 F. App ’x 1 65, 167 (3d Cir

. 2010) ( unpub lis hed)

.

Xtr i a LLC v. Tra cki ng System s, Inc.

, 345 F. App ’x 940, 944 (5t h Cir. 2009) 2 4

(unp ublis hed) ( cit atio n, inte rnal quot atio n m ark s, and br ack ets om itt ed)

.

The Elevent h Circ uit has inte rp ret ed a wa iver of app eal allow ing an app eal fr om an 2 5

up w a r d d e p a r t ure to als o allow an app eal fr om an upw ard varianc e. See Uni ted States v.

Ma nuel

, 208 F. App ’x 713, 716 n.1 (11t h Cir. 2006) (p er curiam ) (unp ublis hed)

. Ho we ver, its

dec isi on res ted on its det erm inati on that the def enda nt’ s wa iver wa s not kn ow ing and

volunt ary. Id. This Circ uit’ s pr ece dent on wh en a wa iver of app eal is kn ow ing and volunt ary

for eclo se s a sim ilar det erm inati on in this cas e. See sup ra note s 4–8 and acc om panyin g text

. Mo reo v e r

, M

anue l wa s dec ide d alm os t tw o years bef ore the Sup rem e Court ’s dec isi on in

Iriz ar ry

, wh ich so lid ifi ed the dis tinc tio n betw een a varianc e and a dep art ure. In light of that

inte rvenin g p rec ede nt, w e f ind the reas oning of Ma nuel in app lica ble.

7 Case: 10-20043 Document: 00511411638 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/15/2011N o

. 1 0

- 2 0 0 4 3

F o r t h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e

, I T I S O R D E R E D t h a t t h e a p p e l l e e ’ s

o p p o s e d m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h i s a p p e a l i s G R A N T E D

. I T I S F U R T H E R

O R D E R E D t h a t t h e a p p e l l e e ’ s a l t e r n a t i v e m o t i o n t o e x t e n d t i m e t o f i l e i t s b r i e f

i s D E N I E D A S M O O T

.

8 Case: 10-20043 Document: 00511411638 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/15/2011