United States v. Thompson, 62 F.4th 37

June 2017 traffic stop: officers found 12 firearms in Thompson’s vehicle and ~134 grams of methamphetamine pills; Thompson had a prior federal felony conviction (2005).
Charged with felon-in-possession (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1)), possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and §924(c) possession in furtherance of drug trafficking.
November 2020 plea agreement: Thompson pleaded guilty to the felon-in-possession count; government dismissed other counts; parties jointly recommended 5–8 years; agreement contained an appellate-waiver applicable if court sentenced him to 8 years or less; Thompson reserved the right to contest sentencing enhancements in district court.
December 2021 sentencing: district court accepted plea agreement and imposed 8 years’ imprisonment.
On appeal Thompson challenged two guideline enhancements applied at sentencing: U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (possession in course of drug trafficking) and §2K2.1(b)(4)(B) (possession of one or more firearms with altered/obliterated serial number). The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding the appeal waiver valid and enforceable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thompson’s appellate-waiver is knowing and voluntary given the plea-colloquy	Waiver valid: court specifically inquired about waiver; Thompson signed, reviewed plea, and showed understanding; no contradicting assurances	Colloquy was confusing: court didn’t read waiver, misstated appealability of suppression ruling, said waiver applied "in most circumstances"	Waiver valid and enforceable; colloquy adequate under Teeter; Thompson understood and acquiesced
Whether enforcing the waiver would be a "miscarriage of justice" because §2K2.1(b)(4)(B) (serial-number enhancement) is unconstitutional under Bruen	Enforcing waiver should stand; constitutional attack not a clear, egregious error; legal question unsettled	Bruen renders the serial-number enhancement unconstitutional; therefore enforcing waiver would cause a miscarriage of justice	Miscarriage-of-justice exception not met: lack of clarity on unconstitutionality; not an "egregious" or clearly established error; waiver enforced
Whether Thompson may challenge the §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement on appeal	Government: appeal-waiver bars appellate challenge	Thompson: preserved right to contest enhancements in district court	Challenge to §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was waived on appeal (defendant did not invoke miscarriage-of-justice exception for this claim)

United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) (colloquy requirement for appellate-waiver to be knowing and voluntary)
United States v. De-La-Cruz Castro, 299 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2002) (context matters; waiver statements that allow review to correct miscarriages may be acceptable)
United States v. Villodas-Rosario, 901 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2018) (look to whole record to determine defendant’s understanding of waiver)
United States v. Betancourt-Pérez, 833 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2016) (appeal waivers presumptively valid if scope clear, court inquired, and no miscarriage of justice)
United States v. Padilla-Colón, 578 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2009) (waiver nullified where court’s statements were so misleading as to vitiate the waiver)
United States v. Ortiz-Vega, 860 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2017) (miscarriage-of-justice exception applied sparingly; factors to consider)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (Supreme Court’s test for Second Amendment challenges to firearm regulations)
United States v. Staveley, 43 F.4th 9 (1st Cir. 2022) (adequacy of plea colloquy depends on case specifics)
United States v. Rahimi, 59 F.4th 163 (5th Cir. 2023) (example of Bruen being applied to invalidate a federal firearms prohibition)