452 F. App'x 488
5th Cir.2011Background
- Narvaez was convicted by a jury of forging a United States bankruptcy judge’s signature to discharge him in bankruptcy and used the forged document to purchase a vehicle, receiving a fifteen‑month sentence.
- Narvaez participated in a Medicaid fraud scheme via NFPS with his wife and another person, obtaining a Medicaid provider license and contract through misrepresentations and falsifications, then falsifying client records and billing for unprovided services.
- A grand jury indicted Narvaez on ten counts of healthcare fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud; he pled guilty to the conspiracy counts and agreed to forfeit over $400,000.
- His plea agreement contained a broad appellate waiver of the right to appeal or challenge sentence, with carve‑outs for ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, and stated that he knew his sentence had not yet been determined.
- Narvaez challenged the waiver as possibly not knowing and voluntary due to a purported insufficient Rule 11 colloquy; the government argued the waiver was valid and barred the appeal; the district court’s colloquy was reviewed for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appellate waiver valid to bar Narvaez’s appeal? | Narvaez argues the waiver is invalid because the district court failed to ensure his knowing and voluntary understanding. | The government contends Narvaez knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal. | Waiver valid; appeal dismissed. |
| Was the Rule 11 colloquy adequate to establish a knowing and voluntary waiver? | Narvaez asserts the colloquy was deficient and failed to ensure an informed waiver. | The government contends the colloquy sufficed to show understanding and voluntariness. | Colloquy defects did not affect substantial rights; still valid waiver. |
| Did plain error review apply to challenges about the waiver’s validity? | Narvaez argues plain error should apply for a Rule 11 deficiency. | Government maintains ordinary waiver validity standards apply; any error is plain error only if conditions met. | Plain error review applied; no reversible error found. |
| Do restitution or consecutive-sentence issues fall within the waiver? | Narvaez contends the waiver should not bar review of restitution or sentence-concurrency concerns. | Waiver broadly covers appeal on any ground; exceptions do not carve out these issues. | Waiver barred review of those issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuevas-Andrade v. United States, 232 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2000) (Rule 11(b)(1)(N) challenge reviewed for plain error when no objection raised)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (Supreme Court 2002) (plain-error review for silent defendants; governs Rule 11 challenges)
- Melancon v. United States, 972 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1992) (waiver of appellate rights must be informed and voluntary)