Court Opinion

ID: 9954171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 19:01:38.663794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:52.238702
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13975    Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 03/25/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13975
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JESUS CHAVEZ-BORJA,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00334-CEH-MRM-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13975      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 03/25/2024     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13975

       Before ROSENBAUM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Jesus Chavez-Borja appeals his sentence of 87 months’ im-
       prisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with in-
       tent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. See 21
       U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). He challenges the calculation
       of his guideline range and the conditions of his supervised release.
       The government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on a sen-
       tence-appeal waiver in Chavez-Borja’s plea agreement. Chavez-
       Borja responds that we should adopt and apply a “miscarriage-of-
       justice” exception to appeal waivers and hear his challenges.
              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 voluntary ap-
       peal waivers according to their terms.” United States v. Bascomb, 451
       F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006). Thus, an appeal waiver may apply
       “not only to frivolous claims, but also to difficult and debatable
USCA11 Case: 22-13975      Document: 38-1       Date Filed: 03/25/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       22-13975                Opinion of the Court                          3

       legal issues” or even “blatant error.” King, 41 F.4th at 1367 (quota-
       tion marks omitted). Still, we have recognized certain exceptions
       to appeal waivers, including jurisdictional defects, sentences based
       on a constitutionally impermissible factor such as race, sentences
       that exceed the statutory maximum penalty, or “extreme circum-
       stances” like a “public flogging” sentence. Id. But we have “never
       adopted a general ‘miscarriage of justice’ exception to the rule that
       valid appeal waivers must be enforced according to their terms.”
       Id. at 1368 n.3; see also Rudolph v. United States, 92 F.4th 1038, 1048–
       49 (11th Cir. 2024) (declining to recognize a miscarriage-of-justice
       exception to appeal waivers).
              Here, the government has shown that the appeal waiver is
       enforceable. In a provision of the plea agreement titled and under-
       lined, “Defendant’s Waiver of Right to Appeal the Sentence,”
       Chavez-Borja “expressly “waive[d] the right to appeal [his] sen-
       tence 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 district court, (b) exceeded the statutory maximum, or (c) vi-
       olated the Eighth Amendment. In addition, Chavez-Borja would
       be released from the waiver if the government appealed. Chavez-
       Borja initialed the bottom of each page of the plea agreement, and
       he and his attorney signed the final page under a certification stat-
       ing that he fully understood the plea agreement’s terms.
             Then, during the plea colloquy, a magistrate judge ques-
       tioned Chavez-Borja through an interpreter about the terms of the
USCA11 Case: 22-13975      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 03/25/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13975

       plea agreement, including the appeal waiver. The magistrate judge
       explained that, under the appeal waiver in his plea agreement,
       Chavez-Borja was “waiving [his] right to appeal [his] sentence ex-
       cept on very narrow grounds.” In particular, the magistrate judge
       stated, he was “waiv[ing his] right to appeal [his] sentence on any
       ground, including the ground that the [d]istrict [j]udge made a mis-
       take in calculating [his] sentencing guidelines range,” unless one of
       the waiver’s exceptions applied, which the magistrate judge de-
       scribed nearly verbatim from the agreement. Chavez-Borja con-
       firmed that he understood the appeal rights he was giving up, that
       he had discussed the appeal waiver with his attorney, that he did
       not have any questions about it, and that he made the waiver freely
       and voluntarily. The magistrate judge found that Chavez-Borja
       pled guilty freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the con-
       sequences. And the district court accepted the plea without any
       objections.
               Because Chavez-Borja was specifically questioned about the
       waiver, and it is otherwise clear from the record that he understood
       the waiver’s full significance, we will enforce the waiver according
       to its terms. See Bascomb, 451 F.3d at 1294; Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351.
       And Chavez-Borja does not contend that the terms of his appeal
       waiver permit his current appeal, which challenges the guideline
       range under which he was sentenced and the conditions of his su-
       pervised release.
             Instead, Chavez-Borja maintains that we should adopt and
       apply a miscarriage-of-justice exception, as some other circuits
USCA11 Case: 22-13975       Document: 38-1        Date Filed: 03/25/2024       Page: 5 of 5

       22-13975                 Opinion of the Court                             5

       have done. See, e.g., United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1327 (10th
       Cir. 2004) (en banc); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 891 (8th Cir.
       2003) (en banc). But he fails to explain why the issues he raises
       would qualify under such an exception.1 And we have repeatedly
       declined to recognize any exceptions beyond “our established cat-
       egories of unwaivable claims,” which are outlined above and do
       not apply in this case. King, 41 F.th at 1368 n.3; see also Rudolph, 92
       F.4th at 1048–49 (“declin[ing] to create [a miscarriage-of-justice] ex-
       ception”). We follow that same course here.
             For these reasons, we grant the government’s motion to dis-
       miss Chavez-Borja’s appeal based on the appeal waiver in his plea
       agreement.
              DISMISSED.

       1 It does not appear Chavez-Borja would be barred from filing a motion under

       18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to obtain the benefit of Amendment 821 to the United
       States Sentencing Guidelines, which took effect after sentencing. Similarly,
       Chavez-Borja may move to modify the conditions of his supervised release
       under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2).