United States v. Devon Guice, 925 F.3d 990

Devon Guice pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
At sentencing the district court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using/possessing the firearm in connection with another felony, producing a Guidelines range of 100–120 months.
The district court sentenced Guice to 120 months (top of the Guidelines range); Guice appealed the enhancement.
Guice’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver: if the court accepted the plea and sentenced within or below the calculated Guidelines range, Guice waived all sentencing appeals except those related to Criminal History.
The government moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the waiver bars Guice’s challenge; the court considered whether the waiver was clear, knowing, voluntary, and whether enforcing it would cause a miscarriage of justice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Guice may appeal the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement despite plea-waiver	Waiver was unenforceable because district court didn’t explain consequences of forfeiting appeal rights for disputed enhancements and enhancement relied on inadmissible hearsay	Waiver is clear: plea agreement bars appeals of sentencing issues other than Criminal History when court accepts plea and sentences within Guidelines	Appeal waiver applies; Guice’s sentencing challenge dismissed
Whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary	Signing alone insufficient because court did not resolve disputed enhancements before accepting waiver	Waiver was knowing: plea agreement signed, court read waiver aloud, explained Guidelines calculation, and counsel confirmed limited agreement	Waiver was knowing and voluntary
Whether plea agreement lacked consideration and is void	Agreement conferred no real benefit compared to straight guilty plea, so void for lack of consideration	Government promised no additional charges, limited appeal rights, and to move for acceptance-of-responsibility reduction—sufficient consideration	Agreement valid; not void for lack of consideration
Whether enforcing waiver would cause a miscarriage of justice	Enhancement based on double/triple hearsay makes enforcement unjust	Mere misapplication of Guidelines or reliance on hearsay does not automatically create miscarriage of justice	No miscarriage of justice; enforcement appropriate

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (standards for enforcing appellate waivers and miscarriage-of-justice exception)
United States v. Sisco, 576 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2009) (government bears burden to prove waiver is clear; ambiguities construed against government)
United States v. McIntosh, 492 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 2007) (appeal waiver covering sentencing issues applies when plea accepted and within-Guidelines sentence imposed)
United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 1998) (assessing whether waiver was entered knowingly and voluntarily by examining plea circumstances)
United States v. Valencia, 829 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2016) (similar finding that waiver was knowing and voluntary under plea-court colloquy)
United States v. DeWitt, 366 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2004) (plea agreements are contracts interpreted under contract principles)
United States v. Has No Horses, 261 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2001) (government promises in plea agreements constitute consideration)