Court Opinion

ID: 9391949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 19:01:00.373666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.358631
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12607    Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 05/03/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________
                                No. 22-12607
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MAURICE DAUGHTRY,
       a.k.a. Black,
       a.k.a. Smoke,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Alabama
USCA11 Case: 22-12607        Document: 24-1       Date Filed: 05/03/2023       Page: 2 of 5

       2                        Opinion of the Court                     22-12607

                   D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00190-MHT-SMD-1
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Maurice Daughtry pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess
       with intent to distribute oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,
       pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a sentence-appeal
       waiver. The district court sentenced Daughtry to 130 months’
       imprisonment to be followed by 3 years’ supervised release. 1
       Daughtry appeals arguing that his sentence is substantively
       unreasonable. The government moves to dismiss this appeal
       pursuant to the sentence-appeal waiver in Daughtry’s plea
       agreement. 2 After review, we conclude that the sentence-appeal
       waiver is valid and enforceable. Therefore, we grant the
       government’s motion to dismiss.
              “We review the validity of a sentence appeal waiver de
       novo.” United States v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 2008).
       A sentence-appeal waiver is valid and enforceable if it is entered
       into knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Bascomb, 451
       F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d
       1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993). To demonstrate that a waiver was

       1 The district court granted Daughtry’s request for a downward variance and
       varied below the guidelines range of 168–210 months’ imprisonment.
       2 Daughtry did not file a response to the government’s motion to dismiss.
USCA11 Case: 22-12607        Document: 24-1        Date Filed: 05/03/2023        Page: 3 of 5

       22-12607                  Opinion of the Court                              3

       made knowingly and voluntarily, the government must
       demonstrate 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.” Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351.
             Daughtry’s plea agreement contained the following appeal
       waiver:
              Understanding that 18 U.S.C. § 3742 provides for
              appeal by a defendant of the sentence under certain
              circumstances, the defendant expressly waives any
              and all rights conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to appeal
              the conviction or sentence. The defendant further
              expressly waives the right to attack the conviction or
              sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including
              proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Exempt
              from this waiver is the right to appeal or collaterally
              attack the conviction or sentence on the grounds of
              ineﬀective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial
              misconduct. 3
             At the change-of-plea hearing, the magistrate judge
       confirmed that Daughtry read the entire plea agreement,
       understood it, and signed it. 4 The magistrate judge explained that,
       by pleading guilty, Daughtry was giving up his “right to appeal or

       3 The plea agreement also provided that, “if the government decides to
       exercise its right to appeal, the defendant is released from the appeal waiver
       and may pursue any appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).”
       4 Daughtry consented to entering his plea before the magistrate judge.
USCA11 Case: 22-12607     Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 05/03/2023    Page: 4 of 5

       4                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12607

       collaterally attack all or part of [his] sentence except as to
       ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct,” and
       Daughtry stated that he understood. The magistrate judge then
       explained that Daughtry faced a maximum sentence of 20 years’
       imprisonment, that his sentence would be determined at a later
       date, and that the court could vary from the applicable guidelines
       range up to the statutory maximum. Daughtry confirmed that he
       understood. Daughtry further confirmed that there were not any
       provisions in the agreement that he did not understand and agreed
       that he was “willing to be bound by all of the provisions.”
       Daughtry also confirmed that he was pleading guilty freely and
       voluntarily because it was in his best interest to do so and because
       he was in fact guilty. Thereafter, the magistrate judge found that
       Daughtry’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
       The district court later adopted the magistrate judge’s decision.
              Accordingly, the record establishes that Daughtry’s
       sentence-appeal waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made and
       is enforceable. Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351; see also United States v.
       Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th Cir. 2001) (enforcing an appeal
       waiver where “the waiver provision was referenced during [the
       defendant’s] Rule 11 plea colloquy and [the defendant] agreed that
       she understood the provision and that she entered into it freely and
       voluntarily”).
             Because Daughtry’s claim that the sentence is substantively
       unreasonable does not fall within the limited exceptions to the
USCA11 Case: 22-12607    Document: 24-1   Date Filed: 05/03/2023   Page: 5 of 5

       22-12607             Opinion of the Court                    5

       valid sentence-appeal waiver, the waiver forecloses his appeal.
       Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion to dismiss.
             APPEAL DISMISSED.