Background
Justin Lowery pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl. The district court imposed a below-guidelines sentence of two hundred twenty months. Lowery argued on appeal that the district court violated his due process rights by allowing a law enforcement witness to testify without prior notice to the defense. He acknowledged his plea agreement contained a sentence-appeal waiver but contended the district court’s comments at sentencing granting him a right to appeal overrode the waiver.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the validity of the sentence-appeal waiver de novo. It found the waiver was entered knowingly and voluntarily because the magistrate judge specifically questioned Lowery about the waiver during the plea colloquy. The court noted that the Supreme Court in Hunter v. United States rejected the argument that a district court’s statement at sentencing could negate a valid waiver. The court further observed that Lowery did not argue that enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice, a standard requiring egregious error that brings the judicial system into disrepute. The district court had also stated that the sentence was based solely on facts in the presentence investigation report and did not rely on the witness testimony.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces that sentence-appeal waivers are strictly enforced in the Eleventh Circuit. It clarifies that district court comments suggesting a defendant retains appeal rights do not invalidate a waiver signed during a plea agreement, provided the waiver was entered knowingly and voluntarily.