United States v. Allandoe C. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185

Boyd pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to a written plea agreement that included a broad sentence-appeal waiver except if the district court imposed a sentence that "exceeds the advisory guideline range."
The plea agreement stated the district court would determine the advisory guideline range after the PSI, and any estimates from counsel, the government, or probation were non-binding. Boyd initialed and signed the agreement and confirmed at a Rule 11 colloquy that he understood the waiver.
The probation office calculated a base offense level of 25 (U.S.S.G. §2K2.1) based on a prior 1999 Georgia conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, yielding a guideline range of 110–120 months (criminal-history category VI).
Boyd objected, arguing his prior Georgia conviction was categorically overbroad and thus not a qualifying controlled-substance offense; if sustained, his guideline range would have been 51–63 months.
The district court overruled Boyd’s objection, adopted the PSI calculation, and sentenced him to 120 months (the top of the 110–120 range).
Boyd appealed the guideline-calculation ruling; the government moved to dismiss based on the sentence-appeal waiver. The Eleventh Circuit granted the government’s motion and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence-appeal waiver barred Boyd from appealing the district court’s guideline calculation	Boyd: waiver ambiguous because it doesn’t specify who determines the advisory guideline range; thus he can still appeal the calculation	Government: waiver unambiguously refers to the guideline range as determined by the district court; appeals barred unless sentence exceeds that range	Waiver unambiguous; it refers to the range as determined by the district court; appeal barred because sentence (120 months) was within the 110–120 guideline range
Whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary	Boyd: waiver not knowingly/voluntarily made because court didn’t discuss all exceptions or explicitly say he waived appeals of guideline calculations	Government: court’s Rule 11 colloquy, Boyd’s initials/signature, and explicit advice that a within-guidelines sentence cannot be appealed show the waiver was knowing and voluntary	Waiver was knowing and voluntary; district court sufficiently advised Boyd during plea colloquy and the record makes it manifestly clear he understood the waiver

United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1993) (defendant must be questioned at plea colloquy about appeal waiver or record must show understanding)
United States v. Howle, 166 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 1999) (appeal waivers in plea agreements enforceable if knowingly and voluntarily made)
United States v. Buchanan, 131 F.3d 1005 (11th Cir. 1997) (government may move to dismiss appeal based on valid waiver; enforcing waiver preserves bargained-for benefit)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (district court must determine the applicable Guidelines range)
United States v. Hardman, 778 F.3d 896 (11th Cir. 2014) (plea-agreement language given ordinary and natural meaning)
United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2004) (ambiguities in plea agreements construed against the government)
United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2001) (affirming enforcement of appeal waiver when referenced in Rule 11 colloquy and defendant acknowledged understanding)