Court Opinion

ID: 9962970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 14:00:37.931801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:59.211769
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11107    Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11107
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MICLAUDE PETION,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cr-00137-RBD-EJK-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11107      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11107

       Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Miclaude Petion appeals his prison sentence of 70 months
       after pleading guilty to unlawful possession of a ﬁrearm after a fel-
       ony conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He challenges the district
       court’s decision to apply sentencing enhancements for possessing
       between three and seven ﬁrearms, see U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A), and
       for possessing a stolen ﬁrearm, see id. § 2K2.1(b)(4), when calculat-
       ing his advisory guideline range. The government moves to dis-
       miss the appeal, arguing that Petion knowingly and voluntarily
       waived these grounds for appeal in his plea agreement. After care-
       ful review, we grant that motion and dismiss the appeal.
              We review de novo the validity and scope of an appeal waiver
       provision. King v. United States, 41 F.4th 1363, 1366 (11th Cir. 2022).
       Sentence appeal waivers are enforceable if they are made know-
       ingly and voluntarily. Id. at 1367. To enforce a waiver, “[t]he gov-
       ernment must show that either (1) the district court specifically
       questioned the defendant concerning the sentence appeal waiver
       during the Rule 11 colloquy, or (2) it is manifestly clear from the
       record that the defendant otherwise understood the full signifi-
       cance of the waiver.” United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1351
       (11th Cir. 1993). “We have consistently enforced knowing and vol-
       untary appeal waivers according to their terms.” United States v.
       Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006).
USCA11 Case: 23-11107     Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 04/24/2024    Page: 3 of 4

       23-11107               Opinion of the Court                        3

              Here, the government has shown that the appeal waiver is
       enforceable. Among the promises exchanged in the plea agree-
       ment, in a provision titled and underlined, “Defendant’s Waiver of
       Right to Appeal the Sentence,” Petion “expressly waive[d] the right
       to appeal [his] sentence on any ground, including the ground that
       the Court erred in determining the applicable guidelines range,”
       except the grounds that the sentence (a) exceeded the guideline
       range “as determined by the [c]ourt,” (b) exceeded the statutory
       maximum, or (c) violated the Eighth Amendment. In addition, Pe-
       tion would be released from the waiver if the government ap-
       pealed. Petion initialed the bottom of each page of the plea agree-
       ment, and he and his attorney signed the final page under a certifi-
       cation stating that he fully understood the plea agreement’s terms.
              Then, during the plea colloquy, a magistrate judge ques-
       tioned Petion about the terms of the plea agreement, including the
       appeal waiver. The magistrate judge explained that Petion was
       “waiving [his] right to appeal [his] sentence except on four narrow
       grounds,” which the judge accurately recited from the plea agree-
       ment. Petion conﬁrmed that he understood the appeal rights he
       was giving up, that he did not have any questions about the waiver,
       and that he made the waiver freely and voluntarily. The magistrate
       judge found that Petion pled guilty freely and voluntarily, with full
       knowledge of the consequences. And the district court accepted
       the plea without any objections.
             Because Petion was specifically questioned about the
       waiver, and it is otherwise clear from the record that he understood
USCA11 Case: 23-11107     Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024    Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                 23-11107

       the waiver’s full significance, we enforce the waiver according to
       its terms. See Bascomb, 451 F.3d at 1294; Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351.
       And those terms plainly prohibit Petion from challenging his sen-
       tence on the ground “that the [c]ourt erred in determining the ap-
       plicable guidelines range,” since the sentence did not exceed the
       guideline range or the statutory maximum. Accordingly, we must
       enforce the terms of the appeal waiver and grant the government’s
       motion to dismiss.
             DISMISSED.