Court Opinion

ID: 9894583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 14:00:36.938415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:01.297611
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10274    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 11/02/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10274
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JAMES WESLEY BUCHANAN,
       a.k.a. James Buchanan,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00004-KKM-CPT-1
USCA11 Case: 23-10274      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 11/02/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10274

                            ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              James Buchanan appeals his sentence for possession of child
       pornography and destruction of evidence, arguing that the district
       court failed to orally pronounce at sentencing thirteen discretion-
       ary conditions of supervised release that were included in his writ-
       ten judgment. The government has filed a motion to dismiss Bu-
       chanan’s appeal, citing the sentence appeal waiver in his plea agree-
       ment. We now grant that motion because Buchanan’s appeal
       waiver is enforceable and bars his challenge.
              We review the validity of a sentence appeal waiver de novo.
       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). To establish that the waiver was made knowingly and vol-
       untarily, the government must show either that (1) the district
       court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver dur-
       ing the plea colloquy; or (2) the record makes clear that the defend-
       ant otherwise understood the full significance of the waiver. Id.
       Here, the government has shown both.
               In Buchanan’s plea agreement, a section titled and under-
       lined, “Defendant’s Waiver of Right to Appeal the Sentence,” states
       that Buchanan “expressly waive[d] the right to appeal [his] sen-
       tence on any ground,” with certain exceptions that do not apply
USCA11 Case: 23-10274      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 11/02/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       23-10274               Opinion of the Court                         3

       here. Buchanan and his attorney signed the plea agreement under
       a certification stating that Buchanan had read or been read the
       agreement and fully understood its terms.
               Then, during the plea colloquy, the magistrate judge cov-
       ered the plea agreement in detail and specifically questioned Bu-
       chanan about the appeal waiver. Buchanan confirmed his under-
       standing of the appeal waiver and its limited exceptions. The mag-
       istrate judge found that Buchanan’s guilty plea was knowing and
       voluntary and supported by a factual basis. And the district court
       accepted the plea without objection by either party. Accordingly,
       the government has established that the appeal waiver was made
       knowingly and voluntarily.
              The district court sentenced Buchanan to serve 97 months
       in prison, followed by ten years of supervised release. “While on
       supervised release,” the court advised Buchanan, “you must com-
       ply with the mandatory and standard conditions as adopted by the
       United States Court for the Middle District of Florida.” The court
       also imposed several special conditions of release. Buchanan did
       not raise any issue with these conditions at the time. The written
       judgment included more detail about the conditions of Buchanan’s
       release, including, as relevant here, thirteen discretionary condi-
       tions under the heading, “Standard Conditions of Supervision.”
              On appeal, Buchanan argues that the district court erred
       when it imposed these discretionary conditions because it never
       identified them at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Ro-
       driguez, 75 F.4th 1231, 1246 (11th Cir. 2023) (holding that a district
USCA11 Case: 23-10274     Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 11/02/2023   Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                23-10274

       court “erred in imposing additional [discretionary] conditions in
       the written judgment” that were not “pronounced during his sen-
       tencing hearing”).
              Buchanan concedes, though, that his “appeal waiver likely
       bars him from challenging the imposition of certain conditions of
       supervision.” See United States v. Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058, 1067 n.10
       (11th Cir. 2021) (holding that “any challenge related to the condi-
       tions of [the defendant’s] supervised release” was “barred by the
       sentence-appeal waiver”). While he argues that the appeal waiver
       “should not” apply here, attempting to exclude his challenge from
       the scope of the waiver, he does not rely on any of the exceptions
       set forth in the waiver. Because the appeal waiver is enforceable
       and no exception applies, we must enforce the waiver according to
       its terms and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Bascomb, 451
       F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006) (“We have consistently enforced
       knowing and voluntary appeal waivers according to their terms.”).
             For these reasons, we GRANT the government’s motion to
       dismiss.
             APPEAL DISMISSED.