United States v. Eddie Griffin, 701 F. App'x 876

Eddie Griffin pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy and Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
The plea agreement included a sentence-appeal waiver: Griffin waived appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 except where the sentence exceeded statutory maximums, resulted from an upward departure/variance, or if the government appealed; Griffin acknowledged discussing the waiver with counsel.
At the plea colloquy the district court recited the waiver, asked if Griffin understood the terms, and Griffin said he did; the court accepted the plea as knowing and voluntary.
At sentencing the court designated Griffin a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, raising the guideline range; the court varied below that range and imposed a total sentence of 216 months (132 months concurrent on Hobbs counts plus 84 months consecutive on the § 924(c) count).
Griffin appealed arguing the 216-month sentence was substantively unreasonable and contended the appeal waiver was unenforceable because the plea transcript showed he did not understand the waiver’s full significance.
The government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver; the Eleventh Circuit evaluated whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary and whether it barred Griffin’s substantive-reasonableness challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of sentence-appeal waiver	Griffin: waiver unenforceable because plea colloquy shows he did not understand full significance	Government: waiver was knowing and voluntary; bars appeal	Waiver enforceable — court specifically questioned Griffin; record shows understanding
Whether failure to be told waiver bars challenge to career-offender status defeats waiver	Griffin: not told he’d be barred from challenging career-offender determination, so waiver invalid as to that issue	Government: plea agreement warned possibility of career-offender status; waiver covers challenges to guideline range	Waiver covers such challenges; pre-sentencing uncertainty does not invalidate waiver
Whether substantive-reasonableness challenge fits an exception to the waiver	Griffin: sentence was greater than necessary; thus appeal should be allowed	Government: substantive-reasonableness claim falls within waived rights and not within exceptions	Court: claim barred by enforceable waiver; dismissal granted

United States v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for appeal-waiver validity)
United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006) (appeal waivers enforced if knowing and voluntary; waivers include difficult or debatable issues)
United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1993) (waiver valid if court questions defendant about waiver at plea colloquy or record shows defendant understood its significance)
United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver includes appellate challenges even where sentencing issues are vigorously disputed)

Dismissal: The Eleventh Circuit granted the government’s motion to dismiss Griffin’s appeal under the enforceable appeal waiver; appeal dismissed.