Court Opinion

ID: 9914834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 16:01:08.817716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:46.055901
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14278    Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14278
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DEREK MORALES-FIGUEROA,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cr-00144-WWB-LHP-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14278     Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2024    Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-14278

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Derek Morales-Figueroa appeals his 235-month sentence
       imposed after pleading guilty, pursuant to a written plea
       agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
       kilograms or more of cocaine. Morales-Figueroa argues that the
       district court (1) erred in applying a three-level enhancement under
       the sentencing guidelines based on the determination that he had a
       leadership or supervisory role in the crime; and (2) abused its
       discretion in denying his request for a downward variance sentence
       in light of mitigating factors. The government moves to dismiss
       this appeal pursuant to the sentence-appeal waiver in Morales-
       Figueroa’s plea agreement.
              In response, Morales-Figueroa argues that the appeal waiver
       is unenforceable because the district court failed to adequately
       convey during his plea colloquy the circumstances under which he
       was waiving his right to appeal. Furthermore, he states that the
       court’s explanation was inadequate because he may have forgotten
       the contents of the waiver. He also argues that the government
       never stated in the plea agreement that it would be seeking (or that
       Morales-Figueroa agreed to) a sentencing enhancement for being a
       leader in the conspiracy, and therefore, he could not “blindly
       waive” his right to appeal that issue. Finally, he argues that appeal
       waivers do not prevent the correction of a miscarriage of justice,
       which includes the incorrect application of the Sentencing
USCA11 Case: 22-14278      Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2024     Page: 3 of 7

       22-14278               Opinion of the Court                          3

       Guidelines and the law. 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) 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.
             Paragraph B7 of Morales-Figueroa’s plea agreement
       contained the following sentence-appeal waiver:
              The defendant agrees that this Court has jurisdiction
              and authority to impose any sentence up to the
              statutory maximum and expressly waives the right to
              appeal defendant’s sentence on any ground, including
              the ground that the Court erred in determining the
              applicable guidelines range pursuant to the United
              States Sentencing Guidelines, except (a) the ground
              that the sentence exceeds the defendant’s applicable
              guidelines range as determined by the Court pursuant to
              the United States Sentencing Guidelines; (b) the
              ground that the sentence exceeds the statutory
              maximum penalty; or (c) the ground that the
USCA11 Case: 22-14278      Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2024    Page: 4 of 7

       4                         Opinion of the Court              22-14278

             sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the
             Constitution; provided, however, that if the
             government exercises its right to appeal the sentence
             imposed, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b), then
             the defendant is released from his waiver and may
             appeal the sentence as authorized by 18 U.S.C.
             § 3742(a).

       (emphasis in original).
              Morales-Figueroa initialed each page of the agreement and
       signed the plea agreement, including the certification that he had
       read the entirety of the agreement (or alternatively, that it had been
       read to him) and that he fully understood its terms.
              At the change-of-plea hearing, the district court informed
       Morales-Figueroa that he faced a mandatory minimum of ten
       years’ imprisonment and a maximum of life imprisonment, and
       Morales-Figueroa stated that he understood. Morales-Figueroa
       then confirmed that he had initialed the plea agreement at the
       bottom of each page and signed it at the end, and that he had read
       and reviewed the plea agreement with his counsel. He confirmed
       that he did not need any more time to review the agreement, and
       that his counsel had answered all of his questions regarding the
       agreement. The district court then reviewed the terms of the plea
       agreement with Morales-Figueroa. In particular, the district court
       asked whether Morales-Figueroa understood that, as part of his
       plea agreement, he agreed to “expressly waive the right to appeal
       [his] sentence in accordance with the limitations set forth in
USCA11 Case: 22-14278     Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2024    Page: 5 of 7

       22-14278              Opinion of the Court                        5

       paragraph B7 of [the] plea agreement,” and Morales-Figueroa
       confirmed that he understood.
              Morales-Figueroa’s argument that the sentence-appeal
       waiver is unenforceable because it was not explained to him
       adequately is refuted by the record. Although the district court did
       not review the specific exceptions to the waiver during the plea
       colloquy, that fact alone does not render the appeal waiver invalid.
       See United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185, 1191–92 (11th Cir. 2020)
       (holding appeal waiver valid even though district court did not
       review the waiver’s exceptions during the plea colloquy). Rather,
       in assessing whether an appeal waiver is knowing and voluntary,
       the question is whether the record demonstrates that it was
       “clearly conveyed to the defendant that he was giving up his right
       to appeal under most circumstances.” Id. at 1192 (alterations
       adopted) (quotations omitted). In this case, the appeal waiver
       stated unequivocally that Morales-Figueroa was waiving the right
       to appeal his sentence on “any ground” unless one of the following
       occurred—(1) the sentence exceeded the guidelines range as
       determined by the district court at sentencing; (2) the sentence
       exceeded the statutory maximum; or (3) Morales-Figueroa sought
       to challenge the sentence as violating the Eighth Amendment.
       Morales-Figueroa initialed each page of the plea agreement,
       including the page containing the appeal waiver, signed the
       agreement, and confirmed during the plea colloquy that the
       agreement was read to him and that he understood it. And during
       the plea colloquy, the district court orally explained to Morales-
       Figueroa that he was waiving his right to appeal except for under
USCA11 Case: 22-14278     Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2024    Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-14278

       the narrow set of circumstances specified in paragraph B7 of the
       plea agreement, and he stated he understood. Thus, the record
       supports the conclusion that the waiver was clearly conveyed to
       Morales-Figueroa and that he understood the waiver.
              Contrary to Morales-Figueroa’s argument, there is no
       exception to appeal waivers based on (1) the likelihood that he may
       have forgotten the contents of his appeal waiver; (2) the fact that
       he did not know that the government intended to pursue a
       supervisory role enhancement; or (3) his belief that the district
       court committed an error in applying the guidelines. See United
       States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (“An
       appeal waiver includes the waiver of the right to appeal difficult or
       debatable legal issues or even blatant error.”). Likewise, this
       “Circuit has never adopted a general ‘miscarriage of justice’
       exception to the rule that valid appeal waivers must be enforced
       according to their terms.” King v. United States, 41 F.4th 1363, 1368
       n.3 (11th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1771 (2023).
               Consequently, the record establishes that Morales-
       Figueroa’s sentence-appeal waiver was knowingly and voluntarily
       made and is enforceable. Boyd, 975 F.3d at 1192; 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 his claims concerning the guidelines
       enhancement and the downward departure do not fall within any
USCA11 Case: 22-14278    Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2024    Page: 7 of 7

       22-14278              Opinion of the Court                      7

       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.