United States v. Staveley, 43 F.4th 9

During the COVID-19 pandemic the defendant (Staveley) submitted multiple fraudulent PPP loan applications purporting to show payrolls and employees that did not exist.
He was charged with bank fraud, conspiracy, identity-related offenses, and later failed-to-appear after fleeing pretrial release (including staging a fake suicide).
Staveley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and failure to appear; the plea agreement contained a presentence waiver of appeal for sentences within or below the Guidelines range.
At sentencing the district court calculated a Guidelines range of 51–63 months and imposed consecutive sentences of 44 and 12 months (56 months total), a within-Guidelines sentence; the court acknowledged Staveley’s PTSD but rejected a lower sentence.
New (CJA) counsel appealed, asserting for the first time on direct appeal that Staveley received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) both in connection with his plea (limited access to discovery) and at sentencing (failure to substantiate alleged custodial assault), and argued the appeal waiver should be invalidated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of plea appeal waiver	Waiver not knowing/voluntary because counsel was ineffective and Staveley lacked access to discovery before pleading	Plea agreement and colloquy show waiver was clear and defendant understood it	Waiver presumptively valid and knowingly entered; enforceable
Rule 11(b)(1)(N) compliance	Court’s brief questioning about waiver was insufficient given alleged counsel failures	Court twice asked about waiver; defendant said he understood and had experience with prior pleas	No Rule 11 error; record shows adequate inquiry; no plain-error shown
IAC claims first raised on direct appeal	IAC (discovery access; sentencing mitigation) voids waiver and invalidates plea	Fact-specific IAC claims cannot be decided on direct appeal when record undeveloped (Mala rule)	Mala rule bars these fact-specific IAC claims on direct review; cannot overcome waiver
Miscarriage-of-justice exception to waiver	Enforcing waiver would work a miscarriage of justice because counsel failed to develop mitigation evidence of assault/PTSD	Exception requires a clear, significant or constitutional error shown on the record	Exception not met; claims speculative on this record; appeal dismissed without prejudice to §2255 collateral attack

United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) (presumptively enforceable presentence appeal waivers and limits on appellate relief)
United States v. Mala, 7 F.3d 1058 (1st Cir. 1993) (Mala rule: fact-specific IAC claims may not debut on direct appeal when record undeveloped)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (application of Strickland in guilty-plea context)
United States v. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302 (1st Cir. 1991) (narrow exception permitting direct-review IAC where record is sufficient)
United States v. Padilla-Galarza, 990 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2021) (Natanel exception is narrow; dismissal without prejudice appropriate)
Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (U.S. 2019) (appeal waivers are not absolute)
United States v. Nguyen, 618 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2010) (standards for evaluating knowing and voluntary plea waivers)