Ike Jackson, Jr. pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl and was sentenced to 200 months of imprisonment. He subsequently filed a direct appeal arguing that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The government moved to dismiss the appeal, citing an enforceable sentence appeal waiver contained in Jackson's plea agreement. Jackson anticipated this issue and addressed it in his brief, but the core dispute remained whether the waiver barred his specific claim of ineffective assistance on direct review.
The court applied a de novo standard of review to determine the validity of the sentence appeal waiver. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, a waiver is enforceable if it was made knowingly and voluntarily. The government satisfied this burden by showing that the district court specifically questioned Jackson about the waiver during the plea colloquy. The record reflects that Jackson confirmed he was competent, had read the agreement with counsel, and understood the terms. The plea agreement explicitly waived the right to appeal the sentence, with three specific exceptions: if the sentence exceeded the advisory guideline range, exceeded the statutory maximum, or if the government appealed. Crucially, the agreement preserved the right to claim ineffective assistance of counsel only in a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not on direct appeal. The court rejected Jackson's arguments that a 'miscarriage of justice' exception applied or that the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Hunter v. United States changed the law, noting that lower courts must apply existing precedent until the Supreme Court issues a decision altering the law. The court also reaffirmed that district court comments at sentencing cannot vitiate a valid waiver.
Jackson's direct appeal is dismissed, meaning he cannot challenge his sentence for ineffective assistance of counsel through the appellate process. He must instead file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to raise his ineffective assistance claim collaterally. The decision reinforces the strict enforcement of plea agreement waivers in the Eleventh Circuit and clarifies that claims of ineffective assistance at sentencing must be brought via collateral review unless the plea agreement explicitly allows direct appeal.