Opinion ID: 68137
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Appeal Waiver Challenge

Text: Diaz contends that his appeal waiver was not knowing and voluntary because the magistrate judge who conducted the plea colloquy provided an explanation of the waiver that conflicted with the provisions of the written plea agreement. Diaz contends that the magistrate’s explanation violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N), which requires the court to “inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, . . . the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence.” F ED. R. C RIM. P. 11(b)(1)(N). At the plea colloquy, the magistrate judge asked Diaz to examine a copy of the written plea agreement. In response to the magistrate judge’s questions, Diaz confirmed that he had read the plea agreement, understood its terms, and had discussed it with his attorney before signing. Diaz affirmed that the written document set forth all of the terms of his plea agreement. The magistrate judge then asked Diaz whether he understood that he had given up his “right to appeal, except in the limited circumstances of a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum punishment, or an arithmetic error at sentencing” and that he had 3 No. 07-10977 given up his “right to challenge [his] sentence through . . . a writ of habeas corpus . . . except in the limited circumstances of challenging the voluntariness of your plea of guilty or this waiver, or to bring a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Diaz responded in the affirmative. The magistrate judge did not state that under the written plea agreement, Diaz had also retained the right to challenge the voluntariness of his guilty plea or appeal waiver and the right to bring a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. The magistrate’s incomplete explanation, in short, portrayed the waiver as relinquishing more rights than were actually relinquished under the waiver provisions of the written plea agreement. Diaz contends that the fact that he affirmed the correctness of the magistrate judge’s explanation of the waiver shows that he was “confused” and did not understand the terms of the plea agreement. The government counters that Diaz’s signed certification that he had read and understood the written plea agreement and his affirmation about the same to the magistrate judge shows that the plea was knowing and voluntary. The government contends that even if the magistrate judge incompletely explained the contents of the waiver provision, the explanation made it appear as if Diaz were waiving more rights than he actually was, and therefore, if Diaz relied on this explanation, it was with the understanding of a broader waiver that Diaz proceeded with his guilty plea. Because Diaz’s appeal is more easily resolved on the merits, we decline to decide whether an appeal waiver is knowing and voluntary where the written plea agreement accurately describes the waiver and the defendant certifies in writing and swears in court that he has read and understood the plea 4 No. 07-10977 agreement, but the defendant also affirms the accuracy of the district court’s overbroad characterization of the waiver.1 For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that Diaz’s plea was not knowing and voluntary and therefore address his challenges to his sentence.