United States v. Carl Stuber, 20-1982

Between 2018–2019 Stuber made repeated threatening calls to bank employees and family members after disputes over access to a trust; he was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)–(d).
On Nov. 12, 2019 Stuber pleaded guilty to two counts pursuant to a written plea agreement that included a broad "Waiver of Appeal" with limited exceptions (e.g., sentence not in accordance with agreement; sentence exceeds statutory maximum; constitutionally defective sentence).
At change-of-plea the district court questioned Stuber about competency and voluntariness; counsel affirmed competency and voluntariness; Stuber acknowledged understanding the waiver.
At sentencing the court calculated a Guidelines range of 37–46 months, granted the government an upward departure under USSG § 2A6.1, denied other adjustments, and imposed 72 months (and stated it would have imposed an equivalent upward variance if the departure were erroneous).
Stuber appealed, arguing due process/ procedural error (claiming the court failed properly to consider his mental condition and relied on erroneous facts). The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed waiver enforceability and dismissed the appeal, holding the waiver covers Stuber’s claims, the plea and waiver were knowing and voluntary, and enforcement would not produce a miscarriage of justice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea agreement's appeal waiver is ambiguous (paragraph 12(I) vs. waiver clause)	Paragraph 12(I) reserving litigation of guideline adjustments creates ambiguity and preserves appellate rights	No conflict: paragraph 12(I) governs sentencing-stage litigation; waiver limits appellate rights	Waiver is not ambiguous; enforceable as written
Whether Stuber’s due process claim is a constitutionally protected challenge outside the waiver	Stuber says district court violated due process by not finding a mental disorder and by relying on erroneous facts	Government: claim is really a substantive unreasonableness/ sentencing-discretion argument covered by the waiver	Claim is substantive in nature, not a constitutional defect; falls within waiver
Whether plea and waiver were entered knowingly and voluntarily	(Implicit) Stuber contests sentencing consequences and effectiveness of consideration	Record of plea colloquy and counsel’s statements show understanding and voluntariness	Plea and waiver were knowing and voluntary; enforceable
Whether enforcing the waiver would cause a miscarriage of justice	Enforcement would deny review of alleged sentencing unfairness	Miscarriage-of-justice exception is narrow and not satisfied here	No miscarriage of justice; waiver enforced and appeal dismissed

United States v. Dallman, 886 F.3d 1277 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing interpretation and enforcement of plea agreements and appeal waivers)
United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (explaining when waiver enforcement yields a miscarriage of justice)
United States v. Sisco, 576 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2009) (colloquy evidence supports finding plea and waiver were knowing and voluntary)
United States v. Gatling, 803 F. App'x 969 (8th Cir. 2020) (illustrating narrow scope of miscarriage-of-justice exception)