United States v. Justin Ryan Boles, 666 F. App'x 805

Justin Ryan Boles pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine (Count 1) and conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine knowing it would be used to manufacture a controlled substance (Count 8), and was sentenced.
His plea agreement contained a broad conviction-and-sentence appeal waiver; the government moved to dismiss his appeal based on that waiver.
On appeal Boles argued (1) double jeopardy barred convictions and sentences on both conspiracy counts, (2) a six-level enhancement for creating a substantial risk of harm to a minor was unsupported, and (3) a criminal-history point was improperly applied for a 2003 theft conviction outside the 10-year window.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the waiver’s validity de novo and reviewed unpreserved double jeopardy and other claims for plain error where applicable.
The court held Boles knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence (so sentencing challenges were dismissed), but declined to find his conviction-appeal waiver knowingly entered and therefore considered his double jeopardy challenge on the merits.
The court rejected the double jeopardy argument, finding no clear precedent or statute showing it was plain error to convict on both counts, and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appeal waiver bars sentencing challenges	Boles argued sentencing issues preserved or outside waiver	Government argued plea colloquy showed knowing, voluntary waiver of sentence appeals	Court: Waiver of sentence appeals was knowing and voluntary; sentencing claims dismissed
Whether appeal waiver bars conviction (double jeopardy) challenge	Boles argued plea/waiver did not bar a double jeopardy challenge to convictions	Government argued broad waiver covers conviction appeal	Court: Conviction-appeal waiver not shown to be knowingly entered; double jeopardy claim considered on merits
Whether convicting and sentencing Boles on both conspiracy counts violated Double Jeopardy	Boles argued one conspiracy was a lesser-included offense of the other, so multiple convictions punish same offense	Government argued statutes differ and legislative intent not clearly to bar separate convictions	Court: No plain error; no controlling precedent/statute clearly shows double jeopardy violation; convictions affirmed
Whether district court plainly erred applying sentencing enhancements/CH point	Boles argued (a) six-level minor-risk enhancement lacked evidence; (b) 2003 theft conviction was outside 10-year window	Government relied on plea waiver for sentencing and on district court findings	Court: Sentencing challenges dismissed under waiver (not reached on merits)

United States v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of appeal-waiver validity)
United States v. Smith, 532 F.3d 1125 (11th Cir. 2008) (guilty plea does not necessarily waive double-jeopardy challenges when second prosecution is unconstitutional)
United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review framework)
United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2005) (definition of plain error requiring clear law)
United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1993) (when waiver is knowing and voluntary; colloquy or manifest clarity required)
United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2005) (appeal waivers cover difficult legal issues and blatant error)
United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006) (sentencing guideline calculation errors fall within appeal waivers)
United States v. Bobb, 577 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2009) (double jeopardy protects against multiplicitous convictions; remedy is vacatur of one conviction)
Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (U.S. 1985) (determine legislative intent before applying Blockburger)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test for same-offense analysis requiring each statute to require proof of an additional element)
Theriault v. United States, 434 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1970) (definition of lesser-included offense)
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (adopting pre-1981 Fifth Circuit decisions as binding)