Court Opinion

ID: 9379030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 15:01:00.717993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:34.523106
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12450       Document: 26-1    Date Filed: 03/14/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                             ____________________

                                  No. 22-12450
                             Non-Argument Calendar
                             ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                        Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       KELVIN VERA,
       a.k.a. Kevin Vera,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                             ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00349-KKM-CPT-3
USCA11 Case: 22-12450      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 22-12450

                            ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Kelvin Vera appeals his 135-month sentence for conspiring
       to possess cocaine with intent to distribute it while on board a ves-
       sel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in violation of 46
       U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a),(b). In response, the Government
       moves to dismiss this appeal based on Vera’s appeal waiver. We
       agree with the government and therefore 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 will be enforced if it was made knowingly
       and voluntarily. United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350 (11th
       Cir. 1993). To establish the waiver was knowing and voluntarily,
       the government must show either that: (1) the court specifically
       questioned the defendant about the waiver during the plea collo-
       quy; or (2) the record makes clear that the defendant otherwise un-
       derstood the full significance of the waiver. Id. at 1351.
               “An appeal waiver includes the waiver of the right to appeal
       difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant errors.” United
       States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005). Still,
       we have recognized some narrow exceptions that permit us to re-
       view an appeal despite an appeal waiver, such as for a sentence
       based on a constitutionally impermissible factor or in excess of the
       statutory maximum penalty. Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1350 n. 18.
USCA11 Case: 22-12450     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       22-12450               Opinion of the Court                        3

               Here, Vera pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with in-
       tent to distribute cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the ju-
       risdiction of the United States. As part of the plea agreement, Vera
       waived the right to appeal his sentence “on any ground, including
       the ground that the Court erred in determining the applicable
       guidelines range pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guide-
       lines.” The plea agreement reserved Vera’s right to appeal based
       on “(a) the ground that the sentence exceeds the defendant’s appli-
       cable guidelines range as determined by the Court pursuant to the
       United States Sentencing Guidelines; (b) the ground that the sen-
       tence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty; or (c) the ground
       that the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitu-
       tion.” A magistrate judge inquired, and Vera confirmed, that he un-
       derstood he was otherwise relinquishing the right to appeal his sen-
       tence.
              On appeal, Vera claims his 135-month sentence—a sentence
       below the guidelines range—is substantively unreasonable. His ap-
       peal is not based upon any permitted grounds reserved under the
       plea agreement, nor does not fit within one of our narrow excep-
       tions permitting us to look past an appeal waiver. See id. Vera’s
       appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary based on his confirma-
       tion that he understood its terms before the magistrate judge. Id.
       at 1351.
             Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED.