United States v. Justin Birdhorse, 701 F.3d 548

Birdhorse pled guilty to raping S.T. under 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2) with a plea agreement promising a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility if no disqualifying PSR evidence appeared.
Plea agreement waived Birdhorse’s right to appeal non-jurisdictional issues within the guideline range.
PSR recommended total offense level 36 (including use-of-force and vulnerable-victim enhancements) and advised against any acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
Birdhorse’s PSR interview statements contradicted earlier sworn statements; he altered his account to the probation officer, claiming S.T. was the aggressor in the incident.
District court adopted PSR calculations, applied use-of-force and vulnerable-victim enhancements, and denied the acceptance-reduction; Birdhorse was sentenced to 276 months.
Birdhorse appealed, arguing government breach of plea and errors in sentencing calculations; the government contends waiver and plain-error standards apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the government breach the plea agreement?	Birdhorse argues the government breached by opposing the acceptance reduction.	Birdhorse contends he accepted responsibility per the plea terms.	No plain error; government reasonably relied on PSR evidence showing lack of acceptance.
Whether the district court erred in sentencing by applying adjustments	Birdhorse contends use-of-force and vulnerable-victim enhancements and no acceptance reduction were improper.	Government maintains adjustments were proper and consistent with PSR.	Sentence calculations upheld; waivers limit appellate challenges to issues beyond the guideline range.
Is the appeal covered by the waiver of appellate rights?	Birdhorse asserts the waiver does not bar review of sentencing calculations.	Government asserts waiver is valid and encompasses sentencing-range determinations.	Waiver valid; Birdhorse cannot challenge the sentence or guideline calculations.

United States v. Martin, 583 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard when no objection to plea breach is raised in district court)
United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc; enforceability of broad appellate-waiver provisions)