Ana Romero was convicted of conspiring to commit wire fraud and to defraud the IRS, resulting in a 21-month prison sentence. Before sentencing, Romero entered into a plea agreement that included a specific provision titled 'Defendant's Waiver of Right to Appeal the Sentence.' In this provision, she expressly waived her right to appeal her sentence on any ground, with limited exceptions for sentences exceeding the applicable guideline range, exceeding the statutory maximum, violating the Eighth Amendment, or if the government appealed. During the plea colloquy, a magistrate judge explained the waiver's terms to Romero, noting that she was waiving her right to appeal even if the judge made a mistake in calculating the sentencing guideline range, except for four narrow grounds. Romero confirmed she understood the waiver, had no questions, and signed a certification stating she fully understood the agreement. After the district court accepted her guilty plea and imposed the sentence, Romero appealed, arguing the court failed to properly consider home confinement and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the validity and scope of the appeal waiver provision de novo. Under the court's precedent, specifically United States v. Bushert, sentence appeal waivers are enforceable if made knowingly and voluntarily. The government must demonstrate either that the district court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver during the Rule 11 colloquy or that it is manifestly clear from the record that the defendant understood the waiver's full significance. The court found that the government met this burden because the magistrate judge specifically questioned Romero about the waiver's terms, explained the exceptions, and Romero confirmed her understanding. The court emphasized that knowing and voluntary waivers must be enforced according to their terms. Romero attempted to appeal on grounds that the sentence was substantively unreasonable and that home confinement was not properly considered. However, the court noted that her appeal did not allege that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum, exceeded the applicable guideline range, or violated the Eighth Amendment. Since her claims fell outside the specific exceptions listed in her waiver, the waiver barred the appeal entirely.
The dismissal leaves Romero's 21-month sentence for wire fraud conspiracy intact. The decision reinforces the strict enforcement of plea agreement appeal waivers in the Eleventh Circuit when the colloquy record shows the defendant understood the waiver's scope. It clarifies that arguments regarding substantive reasonableness or the consideration of home confinement are barred if they do not fall within the narrow exceptions of exceeding the guideline range, statutory maximum, or constitutional violations. No remand instructions were issued as the appeal was dismissed.