United States v. Boyd

• Decision Date: 16 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-11063,18-11063
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Allandoe C. BOYD, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

975 F.3d 1185

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Allandoe C. BOYD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-11063

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

September 16, 2020

Lindsay Feinberg, U.S. Attorney Service - Middle District of Georgia, U.S. Attorney's Office, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jonathan Dodson, Christina Lee Hunt, Federal Public Defender's Office, Macon, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BRANCH, MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,^* District Judge.

BRANCH, Circuit Judge:

Allandoe Boyd decided to plead guilty and entered into a plea agreement wherein he waived "any right to an appeal or other collateral review" of his sentence unless "the District Court imposes a sentence that exceeds the advisory guideline range." At sentencing, the district court determined that the advisory guideline range was 110 to 120 months and sentenced Boyd to 120 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a mandatory $100 assessment fine. Despite this within guidelines sentence and his sentence-appeal waiver, Boyd contends that his appeal is nonetheless permissible because he is arguing that the district court incorrectly calculated the guideline range in the first instance. Because we conclude that the sentence-appeal waiver is unambiguous and was made knowingly and voluntarily, we GRANT the government's motion to dismiss.

I. Background

In August 2017, Boyd was charged by a superseding Information with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.¹ Boyd waived his right to a grand jury indictment and pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement. In relevant part, the plea agreement provided that Boyd faced a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and that the district court would determine the advisory guideline range after the presentence investigation report ("PSI") was completed by the United States Probation Office. The plea agreement cautioned that the district court was "not bound by any estimate of the advisory sentencing range that defendant may have received from defendant's counsel, the government, or the Probation Office." Further, Boyd could not "withdraw [his] plea because [he] has received an estimated guideline range from the government, [his] counsel, or the Probation office which is different from the advisory guideline range computed by the Probation Office in the [PSI] and found to be the correct advisory guideline range." The plea agreement explained that Boyd would have an opportunity to object to the PSI and information contained therein, but that "any objections or challenges by [Boyd] or [his] attorney to the [PSI], the Court's evaluation and rulings, or the Court's sentence, [would] not be grounds for withdrawal of the plea of guilty." In addition, the agreement explained that the district court had "the discretion to impose a sentence that is more severe or less severe than the advisory guideline range." Finally, the sentence-appeal waiver in the plea agreement provided as follows:

The defendant understands that ordinarily Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742, will in certain cases allow for a direct appeal after sentencing followed by the Court of Appeals’ limited review of a defendant's sentence. But once this agreement is accepted and sentence is imposed by the District Court, defendant by this agreement forever waives any right to an appeal or other collateral review of defendant's sentence in any court, other than any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, in the event that the District Court imposes a sentence that exceeds the advisory guideline range , then the defendant shall retain only the right to pursue a timely appeal directly to the Court of Appeals after the District Court imposes its sentence. In the event that the defendant retains the right to a direct appeal, that right is limited to appealing sentencing issues only. The defendant and the United States Attorney agree that nothing in this plea agreement shall affect the government's right or obligation to appeal as set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742(b). If, however, the United States Attorney appeals the defendant's sentence pursuant to this statue [sic], the defendant is released from defendant's waiver of defendant's right to appeal altogether.

(emphasis added). Boyd initialed each page of the agreement, affirmed that he read and discussed the plea agreement with his attorney, and that he fully understood it and agreed to its terms, and signed the agreement. Boyd's counsel also signed the agreement.

At the change-of-plea hearing, the district court conducted a plea colloquy consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.² In relevant part, the district court advised Boyd that the guidelines were advisory, that it would "calculate the advisory guideline range," and that it would consider that range along with other relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The district court also explained that the sentence it imposed on Boyd might differ from any prior estimate that he may have received, and that the court could impose a sentence that was more or less severe than the applicable guideline range. Boyd confirmed that he understood this information. Boyd also confirmed that he had discussed the plea agreement with his attorney and that he had read and understood it. The district court advised Boyd that, per the plea agreement, if the district court "sentence[d] [him] within the advisory guideline range, [he would] not be able to appeal that sentence or ever attack it in any way through a direct appeal or some collateral attack such as habeas corpus[,]" and Boyd stated that he understood. The district court ultimately accepted Boyd's guilty plea, concluding that he was competent and capable, understood the consequences of the plea, and that he entered into the plea knowingly and voluntarily.

In preparing the PSI using the 2016 United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, the probation office determined that Boyd's base offense level was 22, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3),³ because Boyd possessed a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine and he had a prior felony conviction for a controlled substance—a 1999 Georgia conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Six additional offense points were assessed because the offense involved multiple firearms and Boyd possessed the firearms in connection with another felony offense (trafficking heroin). With a three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Boyd's total adjusted base offense level was 25, which when combined with his category VI criminal history score, resulted in an advisory guideline range of 110 to 120 months’ imprisonment.

Prior to sentencing, Boyd objected to the guidelines calculation in the PSI, arguing, as relevant to this appeal, that his prior Georgia conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana did not qualify as a "controlled substance offense" for purposes of the Guidelines because it is "categorically overbroad." The probation office maintained that it had properly calculated the guideline range, but acknowledged that if Boyd was correct, his base offense level would by lowered to 17 with a resulting guideline range of 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment.

At sentencing, after hearing argument from Boyd's counsel, the district court overruled Boyd's objection and determined that the total adjusted base offense level was correctly calculated at 25 and the resulting guideline range was 110 to 120 months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced Boyd to 120 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. This appeal followed. The government has moved to dismiss this appeal based on the sentence-appeal waiver.

II. Discussion

"A plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the Government and a criminal defendant. Among the considerations that a defendant may offer as part of such a contract is waiver of his right to appeal, provided that the waiver is made knowingly and voluntarily." United States v. Howle , 166 F.3d 1166, 1168 (11th Cir. 1999). "When a defendant attempts to appeal a sentence in the face of an appeal waiver, the government may file a motion to dismiss the appeal based upon the waiver." United States v. Buchanan , 131 F.3d 1005, 1008 (11th Cir. 1997). Where the government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver, "[it] must show that either (1) the district court specifically questioned the defendant concerning the sentence appeal waiver during the [plea] colloquy, or (2) it is manifestly clear from the record that the defendant otherwise understood the full significance of the waiver." United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th Cir. 1993). "We have consistently enforced knowing and voluntary appeal waivers according to their terms." United States v. Bascomb , 451 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). We review "the validity of a sentence appeal waiver de novo ." United States v. Johnson , 541 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 2008). Boyd argues that the appeal waiver does not bar his appeal because its language was ambiguous, and it was not knowingly and voluntarily made. We address each argument in turn.

A. Boyd's appeal waiver is unambiguous and it bars this appeal provided it is otherwise enforceable

We interpret the language of a plea agreement according to its plain and ordinary meaning. See United States v. Hardman , 778 F.3d 896, 900 (11th Cir. 2014) ("The language of a plea agreement should be given its ordinary and natural meaning unless the parties indicate otherwise."); United States v. Rubbo , 396 F.3d 1330, 1334 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that the terms of plea agreements should be interpreted according to "their usual and ordinary meaning"). "[I]n determining the meaning of disputed terms, the court applies an objective standard and eschews both ‘a...