Court Opinion

ID: 9411023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 17:13:33.688212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:02.280799
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40812        Document: 00516832585             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/25/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-40812
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                     July 25, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   John Carl Ferrell, M.D.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CR-167-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         John Carl Ferrell pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement
   with an appeal waiver, to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent
   to distribute and dispense and distributing and dispensing of controlled
   substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
   Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40812        Document: 00516832585          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/25/2023

                                      No. 22-40812

   2370 (2022), Farrell filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The district court
   denied his motion and sentenced him to a 96-month term of imprisonment.
             On appeal, Ferrell argues that the district court erred in denying his
   motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and requests that his case be remanded to
   the district court with instructions to do so. He contends that it was an error
   for the district court to look at the transcript of his plea colloquy, and
   specifically his actual admitted behavior, in denying his motion to withdraw
   his plea. Farrell asserts that enforcing the plea agreement would result in a
   miscarriage of justice.
             We review whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal de novo. United
   States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). When deciding “whether
   an appeal of a sentence is barred by an appeal waiver provision in a plea
   agreement, we conduct a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the waiver was
   knowing and voluntary and (2) whether the waiver applies to the
   circumstances at hand, based on the plain language of the agreement.”
   United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005).
             An appeal “waiver is both knowing and voluntary if the defendant
   indicates that he read and understood the agreement and the agreement
   contains an explicit, unambiguous waiver of appeal.” United States v. Kelly,
   915 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2019). The record shows that Farrell read and
   reviewed the plea agreement with counsel, and that the terms of the plea are
   clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, his plea was knowing and voluntary.
   See id.
             His plea agreement waived his right to appeal his conviction on all
   grounds, reserving only the right to bring an appeal if the district court
   sentenced him outside the terms of the agreement or to bring a claim of
   ineffective assistance of counsel.       It therefore applies to the current
   circumstance, which does not implicate either scenario. See Bond, 414 F.3d

                                           2
Case: 22-40812      Document: 00516832585          Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/25/2023

                                    No. 22-40812

   at 544. Regarding his contention that enforcing the appeal waiver would
   result in a miscarriage of justice, we have “declined explicitly either to adopt
   or to reject” a miscarriage-of-justice exception to the enforceability of appeal
   waivers. United States v. Barnes, 953 F.3d 383, 389 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Because the waiver is knowing and voluntary and applies to Farrell’s
   challenge based on the plain language of the plea agreement, see Bond, 414
   F.3d at 544, and because we have not explicitly recognized a miscarriage-of-
   justice exception, the appeal is DISMISSED.

                                          3