Opinion ID: 3090869
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appeal Waiver Exception

Text: The Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver provision in Campbell’s plea agreement. This Court reviews de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). To determine the validity of an appeal waiver, this Court conducts a two-step inquiry. United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). Specifically, this Court considers whether the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily and whether, under the plain language of the plea agreement, the waiver applies to the circumstances at issue. Id. In determining whether a waiver applies, this Court employs ordinary principles of contract interpretation, construing waivers narrowly and against the Government. United States v. Palmer, 456 F.3d 484, 488 (5th Cir. 2006). In the instant case, the written appeal waiver stated that Campbell waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence on direct appeal, except in the case of a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum. Campbell also signed the agreement, acknowledging her agreement. At rearraignment, the district court asked Campbell whether she understood the terms of the plea agreement and its appeal waiver provision. Campbell stated that she understood. Campbell further stated that no one had forced or compelled her to plead guilty. Thus, the appeal waiver was entered knowingly and voluntarily and satisfies the first step of the two-part inquiry. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). Campbell nevertheless contends that the appeal waiver contained in her plea agreement does not bar her present appeal. The appeal waiver states that Campbell waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence on direct appeal, except in the case of a sentence “in excess of the statutory maximum.” Campbell contends that the appeal waiver does not bar her claim that the restitution amount exceeded the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. 5 Case: 12-31172 Document: 00512501835 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 No. 12-31172 § 3663(a)(2). Campbell relies on United States v. Chemical & Metal Industries, Inc., (C&MI), 677 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2012). In C&MI, this Court found the appeal waiver—which contained a similar “in excess of the statutory maximum” exception—did not bar the defendant’s challenge to the restitution award. Id. at 752. The Court reasoned that (1) 18 U.S.C. § 3664 does not authorize a district court to enter a restitution order that exceeds the victim’s losses; and (2) an appeal of such an order would be an appeal of a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum. See id. at 752. C&MI controls Campbell’s case. Just like in C&MI, Campbell’s appeal falls within the exception to the waiver appeal that the parties agreed to in the plea agreement.