United States v. Jamad Jacque Wallace, 18-13997

Wallace pleaded guilty to possession of stolen firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(j)) and entered a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver of "any right to appeal or any other court review" of his sentence, except for ineffective assistance of counsel; two narrow waiver exceptions were included (if the court imposed a sentence exceeding the guideline range as determined by the court, or if the government appealed).
Wallace initialed each page and signed the plea agreement; the district court conducted a plea colloquy during which it informed Wallace of the waiver and its exceptions, and Wallace stated he had no questions and gave up his appeal rights as set forth.
The PSR calculated a guideline range of 100–120 months; Wallace objected to the base offense level and a specific enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1.
At sentencing the court overruled Wallace’s objections and imposed a 120‑month sentence (statutory maximum), with half to run consecutive to an undischarged state life sentence.
Wallace appealed contesting the district court’s guideline determinations; the government moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the plea‑agreement waiver.
The Eleventh Circuit found the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made, that no waiver exception applied, dismissed the appeal, and declined to resolve Wallace’s ineffective‑assistance claim on direct appeal (noting § 2255 is the preferred vehicle per Massaro).

Issue	Wallace's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Wallace may challenge the sentence on appeal despite the plea‑agreement appeal waiver	Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s guideline rulings at sentencing	The waiver bars appellate review because it was knowingly and voluntarily made and no exception applies	Waiver enforced; appeal dismissed
Whether the appeal waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily	Wallace does not dispute the colloquy but pursued the sentencing challenge	Government points to the signed plea agreement and the district court’s specific questioning during the plea colloquy	Waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily
Whether any exception to the waiver applies (court‑imposed sentence exceeding the guideline range as determined by the court; government appeal)	Wallace argues the district court erred in guideline calculations (implying review should be allowed)	Government notes sentence was within the guideline range as determined by the court and government did not appeal	No exception applied; sentence was within the court‑determined guideline range
Whether the court will decide Wallace’s ineffective‑assistance claim on direct appeal	Wallace preserves an ineffective‑assistance claim	Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver; did not concede ineffective‑assistance issue	Court declined to address ineffective assistance on direct appeal (record insufficient); §2255 preferred per Massaro

United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006) (courts will enforce appeal waivers that are knowing and voluntary)
United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1993) (waiver is knowing and voluntary if district court specifically questions defendant about waiver or record shows full understanding)
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (§ 2255 proceedings are generally the preferred forum for ineffective‑assistance claims)