Opinion ID: 43522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plea Claims1

Text: In this case the district court erred by finding that Cowart’s claims that her 1 The district court found that one of the plea issues was not precluded by Cowart’s sentenceappeal waiver: her claim that her counsel was ineffective in advising her about her plea agreement. Any challenge to the district court’s merits determination of this issue is outside the scope of the COA, which only contemplates review of the issues that the district court deemed precluded. Therefore, because our review is limited to the issue specified in the COA, and Cowart has not requested that the COA be expanded to include a challenge to the district court’s merits determinations, we do not address this issue. See Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Jones v. United States, 224 F.3d 1251, 1255-56 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that, unless defendant successfully expands the COA to include a claim, we need not address it). 4 counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) negotiate a guilty plea to Count 2, instead of Count 1; and (2) raise an issue regarding Cowart’s postpartum depression; were precluded by Cowart’s sentence-appeal waiver. As in Copeland, the language of Cowart’s sentence appeal waiver provided that she waived her right “to collaterally attack her sentence,” and did not mention a waiver of the right to attack her plea or the plea agreement itself. See Copeland, 381 F.3d at 1105. Therefore, Cowart’s valid sentence-appeal waiver does not preclude these issues, which relate to the validity of the plea or waiver itself. Accordingly, the district court’s decision as to these claims is vacated, and we remand to the district court for it to conduct a merits review of these claims.