Court Opinion

ID: 9396681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 16:01:00.446208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:18.173736
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11348    Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 05/23/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                 No. 22-11348
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JULIO JUNIOR LOOR-SANCHEZ,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeals from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00163-TPB-AEP-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11348   Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 05/23/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                   Opinion of the Court                 22-11348

                         ____________________

                                No. 22-11349
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JULIO JUNIOR LOOR-SANCHEZ,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                         ____________________

                Appeals from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00165-TPB-SPF-1
                          ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit
       Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             The Government moves to dismiss this consolidated appeal
       pursuant to the appeal waivers in Appellant’s plea agreements.
USCA11 Case: 22-11348     Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 05/23/2023    Page: 3 of 4

       22-11348               Opinion of the Court                        3

              An appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly
       and voluntarily. United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th
       Cir. 1993). To establish that the waiver was made knowingly and
       voluntarily, the government must show either that (1) the district
       court speciﬁcally questioned the defendant about the waiver during
       the plea colloquy, or (2) the record makes clear that the defendant
       otherwise understood the full signiﬁcance of the waiver. Id. The
       touchstone for assessing whether a waiver was made knowingly
       and voluntarily if whether it was “clearly conveyed to the defend-
       ant that he was giving up his right to appeal under most circum-
       stances.” United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020)
       (quotation marks and brackets omitted).
               Here, the Government has met its burden. The magistrate
       judge informed Loor-Sanchez that he ordinarily had a right to ap-
       peal his sentence but had waived that right in his plea agreements
       except where: (1) the sentence exceeded the applicable guideline
       range as calculated by the court; (2) the sentence exceeded the stat-
       utory maximum penalty; (3) the sentence violated the Eighth
       Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; or
       (4) the government ﬁled an appeal. Loor-Sanchez conﬁrmed under
       oath that he understood that, by these provisions in his plea agree-
       ments, he expressly waived his right to appeal his sentence unless
       one of those events occurred. Loor-Sanchez also conﬁrmed that
       no one had forced him or threatened him to waive his right to ap-
       peal and that no one had promised him anything in exchange for
       his waiver of that right. Loor-Sanchez also conﬁrmed that he had
       reviewed each plea agreement with his attorney, his attorney had
USCA11 Case: 22-11348    Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 05/23/2023   Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court               22-11348

       answered his questions about the agreements, and he understood
       all the provisions of the plea agreements. Thus, the record shows
       that the magistrate judge clearly conveyed to Loor-Sanchez that he
       was giving up his right to appeal under most circumstances and
       that Loor-Sanchez understood the full signiﬁcance of the waiver.
       Boyd, 975 F.3d at 1192; Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351.
              Further, Loor-Sanchez’s appeal of the reasonableness of his
       sentences does not fall within the scope of any exception to the
       sentence-appeal waivers because the government did not appeal,
       his 292-month sentences were within the guideline range of 292 to
       365 months and below the statutory maximum sentence of life im-
       prisonment, and Loor-Sanchez has not asserted that his sentences
       violate the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the motion is
             GRANTED.