Court Opinion

ID: 9367899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 15:00:41.423898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:04.456695
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13995    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-13995
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       RICARDO AMAUI MONTAS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00273-LMM-CMS-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13995      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 21-13995

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Ricardo Montas appeals the 120-month prison sentence he
       received for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute at least
       500 grams of methamphetamine. He argues that the district court
       committed procedural errors at sentencing and imposed a substan-
       tively unreasonable sentence. The government has filed a motion
       to dismiss Montas’s appeal, based on the sentence appeal waiver in
       his plea agreement. We now grant that motion because Montas’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
       sentence 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
       voluntarily, 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 Montas’s plea agreement, a section titled and underlined,
       “Limited Waiver of Appeal,” stated that Montas expressly waived
       his right to appeal or collaterally attack his convictions or sentences
       “on any ground,” except that he could “file a direct appeal of an
USCA11 Case: 21-13995      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       21-13995                Opinion of the Court                         3

       upward departure or upward variance above the sentencing guide-
       line range as calculated by the [d]istrict [c]ourt,” raise claims re-
       garding his counsel’s ineffective assistance, or file a cross-appeal if
       the government initiated a direct appeal. Another section of the
       agreement stated that there were “no other agreements, promises,
       representations, or understandings between [Montas] and the
       [g]overnment.”
              Appended to the plea agreement was a statement signed by
       Montas confirming that he had read the agreement, carefully re-
       viewed each part with his attorney, understood the terms and con-
       ditions therein, and voluntarily agreed to those terms and condi-
       tions. He confirmed that he understood the appeal waiver and the
       narrow exceptions in which he could appeal. And Montas indi-
       cated that no one had threatened or forced him to plead guilty.
               The district court also specifically questioned Montas about
       the appeal waiver during the plea colloquy. After the government
       summarized the plea agreement and read the terms of the appeal
       waiver into the record, the court emphasized that Montas would
       be “giving up [his] rights to appeal in almost all circumstances,” in-
       cluding “most of [his] right to appeal [his] sentence.” Addressing
       Montas, the court stated, “[A]bsent the very limited circumstances
       in which you have reserved your right to appeal, you will not be
       able to contest the sentence even if it’s wrong or you’re unhappy
       with it.” Montas confirmed his understanding, and Montas’s coun-
       sel stated that he had discussed the appeal waiver with his client.
       Montas also said that he had sufficient time to discuss the case with
USCA11 Case: 21-13995      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13995

       his attorney and had no other questions before pleading guilty.
       The district court accepted Montas’s guilty plea, finding it “know-
       ingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.”
              At sentencing, the district court calculated a guideline im-
       prisonment range of 168 to 210 months and heard arguments as to
       a reasonable sentence. The government asked for a sentence of
       151 months, which it asserted was justified in part by Montas’s flee-
       ing the country to avoid facing charges in this case. Montas re-
       sponded that there was no evidence he left the country to avoid
       prosecution, and he argued he should receive a similar sentence as
       a codefendant to avoid unwarranted disparities. The district court
       sentenced Montas to 120 months, explaining that the sentence took
       into account “the circumstances of you not immediately facing
       what you knew were some serious federal charges, that you took
       a gamble that you could avoid them, and there are consequences
       for that.”
               Montas argues that the district court procedurally and sub-
       stantively erred by relying in part on an “erroneous conclusion that
       [he] fled the United States to avoid prosecution.” But the appeal
       waiver precludes this challenge, even assuming it has merit, be-
       cause it does not fall into any of the exceptions set forth in the ap-
       peal waiver. See United States v. Howle, 166 F.3d 1166, 1169 (11th
       Cir. 1999) (“A waiver of the right to appeal includes a waiver of the
       right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues.”). The waiver is
       enforceable because the district court specifically questioned Mon-
       tas about the waiver during the plea colloquy, and the record
USCA11 Case: 21-13995     Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023   Page: 5 of 5

       21-13995              Opinion of the Court                       5

       otherwise shows that he understood the full significance of the ap-
       peal wavier. See Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351.
             We there GRANT the government’s motion to dismiss.
             APPEAL DISMISSED.