United States v. Blackwell, 651 F. App'x 8

Defendant Tayshawn Blackwell pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that stipulated one prior felony violent conviction and set a Guidelines range of 30–37 months.
The district court sentenced Blackwell to 36 months’ imprisonment and imposed 36 months’ supervised release with a nightly curfew (9 p.m.–6 a.m.).
Blackwell appealed, arguing (1) that a curfew during probation is functionally equivalent to additional incarceration (effectively doubling his sentence) and (2) that, under Johnson, a second state robbery conviction should not qualify as a "crime of violence," invalidating his Guidelines calculation.
The Government argued Blackwell waived his appellate challenges in his plea agreement; the panel construed waivers narrowly and considered which claims were waived.
The Second Circuit reviewed the curfew argument for plain error (it was not raised below) and concluded the imposed curfew hours did not amount to home detention; it rejected equivalence in this case.
The court enforced Blackwell’s appellate waiver as to the Johnson-based Guidelines challenge because his sentence conformed to the plea agreement that relied on the stipulated prior conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether curfew condition equates to additional incarceration for parsimony (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a))	Curfew + prison equals functional 72 months’ incarceration, violating parsimony	Curfew is not equivalent to imprisonment; in this case it was limited to nighttime hours	No plain error; 9 p.m.–6 a.m. curfew is not equivalent to home detention and did not violate parsimony
Whether Johnson decisions invalidate prior robbery convictions as crimes of violence for Guidelines	Under Johnson (2015) and Johnson (2010), robbery convictions aren’t crimes of violence; Guidelines range was miscalculated	Appellate waiver in plea agreement bars this challenge; sentence conformed to the agreement so waiver is enforceable	Waiver enforced; claim foreclosed because defendant received the benefit of plea agreement and was sentenced within its Guidelines range

United States v. Oladimeji, 463 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2006) (appellate waivers are construed narrowly)
United States v. Leaphart, 98 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1996) (discusses distinctions between home detention and other restrictions)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (voiding residual clause of ACCA)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (categorical approach to violent felony definitions)
United States v. Morgan, 406 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2005) (appeal waivers enforceable despite later changes in law)
United States v. Arevalo, 628 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (presumptive enforceability of appeal waivers)
United States v. Salcido-Contreras, 990 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1993) (defendant who waives appeal rights may not challenge sentence that conforms to plea)
United States v. Weintraub, 273 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2001) (plain-error review not met where law is unsettled)
United States v. Haynesworth, [citation="568 F. App'x 57"] (2d Cir. 2014) (curfew not equivalent to home detention for sentencing purposes)