USA v. Julio Junior Loor-Sanchez

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11348
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JULIO JUNIOR LOOR-SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00163-TPB-AEP-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11348 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11348
____________________
No. 22-11349
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JULIO JUNIOR LOOR-SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00165-TPB-SPF-1
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Government moves to dismiss this consolidated appeal
pursuant to the appeal waivers in Appellant’s plea agreements.
USCA11 Case: 22-11348 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

22-11348 Opinion of the Court 3
An appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly
and voluntarily. United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th
Cir. 1993). To establish that the waiver was made knowingly and
voluntarily, the government must show either that (1) the district
court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver during
the plea colloquy, or (2) the record makes clear that the defendant
otherwise understood the full significance of the waiver. Id. The
touchstone for assessing whether a waiver was made knowingly
and voluntarily if whether it was “clearly conveyed to the defend-
ant that he was giving up his right to appeal under most circum-
stances.” United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020)
(quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Here, the Government has met its burden. The magistrate
judge informed Loor-Sanchez that he ordinarily had a right to ap-
peal his sentence but had waived that right in his plea agreements
except where: (1) the sentence exceeded the applicable guideline
range as calculated by the court; (2) the sentence exceeded the stat-
utory maximum penalty; (3) the sentence violated the Eighth
Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; or
(4) the government filed an appeal. Loor-Sanchez confirmed under
oath that he understood that, by these provisions in his plea agree-
ments, he expressly waived his right to appeal his sentence unless
one of those events occurred. Loor-Sanchez also confirmed that
no one had forced him or threatened him to waive his right to ap-
peal and that no one had promised him anything in exchange for
his waiver of that right. Loor-Sanchez also confirmed that he had
reviewed each plea agreement with his attorney, his attorney had
USCA11 Case: 22-11348 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-11348
answered his questions about the agreements, and he understood
all the provisions of the plea agreements. Thus, the record shows
that the magistrate judge clearly conveyed to Loor-Sanchez that he
was giving up his right to appeal under most circumstances and
that Loor-Sanchez understood the full significance of the waiver.
Boyd, 975 F.3d at 1192; Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351.
Further, Loor-Sanchez’s appeal of the reasonableness of his
sentences does not fall within the scope of any exception to the
sentence-appeal waivers because the government did not appeal,
his 292-month sentences were within the guideline range of 292 to
365 months and below the statutory maximum sentence of life im-
prisonment, and Loor-Sanchez has not asserted that his sentences
violate the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the motion is
GRANTED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11348 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/23/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --