Court Opinion

ID: 9928323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 16:02:34.658183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:55.485237
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10764    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10764
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ADRIAN HOWARD,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cr-00053-MTT-CHW-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10764      Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10764

       Before ROSENBAUM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Adrian Howard appeals his 145-month prison sentence for
       possession with intent to distribute heroin, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
       & (b)(1)(C), arguing that the district court erred in applying a sen-
       tencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D2.1(b)(12) for maintain-
       ing a drug premises. The government has filed a motion to dismiss
       Howard’s appeal based on the sentence appeal waiver in his plea
       agreement. We now grant that motion because Howard’s appeal
       waiver is enforceable and bars his challenge.
               We review de novo the validity of a sentence appeal waiver.
       United States v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 2008). A sen-
       tence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and
       voluntarily. United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th Cir.
       1993). The touchstone for assessing whether an appeal waiver was
       made knowingly and voluntarily is whether the court clearly con-
       veyed to the defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal his
       sentence under most circumstances. United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d
       1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020). When an appeal waiver is enforceable,
       it applies “not only to frivolous claims, but also to difficult and de-
       batable legal issues.” King v. United States, 41 F.4th 1363, 1367 (11th
       Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted).
              Here, the government has shown that the appeal waiver is
       enforceable. In Howard’s plea agreement, a section titled and un-
       derlined, “Waiver of Appeal Rights and Right of Collateral Attack,”
USCA11 Case: 23-10764      Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-10764                Opinion of the Court                          3

       states that Howard “waive[d] any right to appeal the imposition of
       sentence upon [him], . . . except in the event that the District Court
       imposes a sentence that exceeds the advisory guideline range as
       that range has been calculated by the District Court at the time of
       sentencing, or in the event that the District Court imposes a sen-
       tence in excess of the statutory maximum.” Howard could also
       appeal if the government appealed. Howard and his attorney
       signed the plea agreement under a certification stating that How-
       ard had read or been read the agreement and fully understood its
       terms.
              Then, during the plea colloquy, the district court covered
       the plea agreement in detail and specifically questioned Howard
       about the appeal waiver. Howard confirmed his understanding of
       the appeal waiver and its limited exceptions. The district court
       found that Howard’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and
       supported by a factual basis. Because the district court specifically
       questioned Howard about the waiver, and the record otherwise
       shows that Howard understood the waiver’s significance, the gov-
       ernment has shown that the appeal waiver was made knowingly
       and voluntarily and so is enforceable. See Boyd, 975 F.3d at 1192;
       Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351.
              No exception to the appeal waiver applies. Howard chal-
       lenges the calculation of his guideline range, specifically the district
       court’s application of an enhancement for maintaining a drug
       premises that the government had stipulated did not apply. But
       because the sentence imposed did not exceed either the statutory
USCA11 Case: 23-10764    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2024   Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court               23-10764

       maximum or “the advisory guideline range as that range has been
       calculated by the District Court at the time of sentencing,” How-
       ard’s challenge is barred by the appeal waiver even if it presents
       difficult and debatable issues. See King, 41 F.4th at 1367.
             For these reasons, we GRANT the government’s motion to
       dismiss the appeal. As a result, Howard’s motion for substitute
       counsel is DENIED as moot.
             APPEAL DISMISSED.