Opinion ID: 62606
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appeal Waiver and Sentence

Text: Dandridge’s plea agreement includes a waiver of his right to appeal his sentence.1 The government argues that Dandridge’s appeal should be dismissed because he waived his right to appeal. We review de novo the validity of a sentence appeal waiver. United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 1993). We will enforce an appeal waiver contained in a plea agreement where the government demonstrates either that: “(1) the district court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver during the plea colloquy, or (2) the record clearly shows that the defendant otherwise understood the full significance of the waiver.” 1 The appeal waiver includes four exceptions that are not relevant here. 3 United States v. Benitez-Zapata, 131 F.3d 1444, 1446 (11th Cir. 1997). An enforceable sentence appeal waiver encompasses an appeal of the government’s refusal to file a § 5K1.1 motion for sentence reduction. See id. at 1446-47. However, this Court has considered on appeal a defendant’s claim that the government breached the plea agreement, even though the agreement contained a sentence appeal waiver. See United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 1104-05 (11th Cir. 2004). In this case, the district court specifically questioned Dandridge about the appeal waiver during the plea colloquy. Dandridge stated that he understood the appeal waiver and its implications. Therefore, the appeal waiver is enforceable. As a result, Dandridge cannot challenge his sentence on appeal. Accordingly, we reject his argument that the district erred at sentencing by denying his request for a minimal role reduction, refusing to adjust his sentence downward in light of the disparity between his sentence and his codefendants’ sentences, and declining to consider the § 3553(a) factors. Dandridge also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and motion to compel the government to file a § 5K1.1 motion. The government contends that both of these claims fall within the appeal waiver and therefore should not be considered on appeal. We need not decide if 4 the appeal waiver extends to these claims because, as the discussion below makes clear, Dandridge cannot prevail on the merits of either claim.