USA v. Joshua Woodey

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 20-10361
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cr-00001-CAR-CHW-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSHUA WOODEY,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________

(June 1, 2020)

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal
waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. As the record reveals,
Woodey knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. See
Case: 20-10361 Date Filed: 06/01/2020 Page: 1 of 3

2
United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that a
sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily).
At the plea colloquy, when the district court was discussing the provisions of the
plea agreement, the court expressly asked Woodey whether he understood he could
not appeal his sentence except for very limited reasons and if he freely and
voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence except under limited
circumstances. Woodey confirmed that he had read the plea agreement, signed it,
and initialed each page and further said that he had had the full opportunity to read
and discuss it with his lawyer before signing, understood the terms, and had no
questions. The record also indicates that Woodey was competent to understand the
provision -- Woodey stated under oath that he had received the equivalent of a high
school education and could read and write. Moreover, Woodey does not contest in
his response to the government’s motion to dismiss that the waiver is valid and
enforceable. Thus, under our binding precedent, the record reflects that Woodey
understood the full significance of the waiver. See Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1350–51;
United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th Cir. 2001).
In addition, the issues in Woodey’s appeal do not fall within the scope of
any exception memorialized in the agreement. The government has not appealed,
and his 235-month sentence was within the guideline range determined by the
district court of 235 to 240 months’ imprisonment and below the statutory
Case: 20-10361 Date Filed: 06/01/2020 Page: 2 of 3

3
maximum sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment. Further, Woodey does not
argue that his sentence exceeded the guideline range as determined by the district
court or the statutory maximum, nor that it violated any of the constitutional rights
we’ve acknowledged may bar the enforcement of an appeal waiver. Finally, while
Woodey argues on appeal that we should not enforce the waiver because the
district court committed clear error when calculating the drug weight attributable to
him, resulting in an “exponentially higher guideline range,” an appeal waiver
includes “the waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or
even blatant error.” United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th
Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss Woodey’s appeal
because it is barred by the appeal waiver.
DISMISSED.
Case: 20-10361 Date Filed: 06/01/2020 Page: 3 of 3