Court Opinion

ID: 9372404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 16:00:51.287987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:35.155342
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12658    Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12658
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       TERRILL TREMAYNE TAYLOR,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cr-00222-ECM-JTA-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12658         Document: 19-1         Date Filed: 02/21/2023         Page: 2 of 4

       2                          Opinion of the Court                       22-12658

       Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Terrill Taylor pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
       agreement containing a sentence-appeal waiver, to being a felon in
       possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The
       district court sentenced Taylor to 57 months’ imprisonment,
       followed by 3 years’ supervised release. Taylor appeals, arguing
       that the district court erred in imposing a two-level guidelines
       enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). 1 The government
       moves to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the sentence-appeal
       waiver. 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). We enforce appeal waivers that are made 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 made
       knowingly and voluntarily, the government must show that either

       1 Under this guideline, the district court is instructed to add two levels if the
       offense involved 3 to 7 firearms. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A).
       2 Taylor did not file a response to the government’s motion to dismiss.
USCA11 Case: 22-12658           Document: 19-1        Date Filed: 02/21/2023   Page: 3 of 4

       22-12658                     Opinion of the Court                        3

       (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.
             Taylor’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.

       Taylor signed the plea agreement.
              The record establishes that the magistrate judge 3 questioned
       Taylor about the sentence-appeal waiver during the change-of-plea
       hearing. Specifically, the magistrate judge confirmed that Taylor
       read the plea agreement in its entirety, understood it, and signed it.
       The magistrate judge explained to Taylor that, by pleading guilty,

       3
           Taylor consented to the magistrate judge taking his plea.
USCA11 Case: 22-12658     Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court               22-12658

       he was giving up his right to appeal his sentence, and Taylor
       confirmed that he understood. Taylor further confirmed that there
       were no provisions in the plea agreement that he did not
       understand and that he wished to enter the plea agreement. He
       also confirmed that no one had made any promises or threats to
       him to induce him to enter the plea, and that he was pleading guilty
       voluntarily.
             Accordingly, the record establishes that Taylor’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 Taylor’s claim concerning the guidelines
       enhancement does not fall within any of the limited exceptions to
       the valid sentence-appeal waiver, the waiver forecloses his appeal.
       Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion to dismiss.
             APPEAL DISMISSED.