United States v. Wallace Carson, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8051

In 2015 Wallace Carson robbed a Walgreens at gunpoint; he pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
Carson’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver in exchange for the government’s recommendation (including acceptance-of-responsibility credit) and an agreed sentencing calculation resulting in a 272-month sentence.
The presentence report and parties’ calculation treated Carson as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based on four prior robbery/armed-robbery convictions, producing a statutory 15-year minimum and a higher Guidelines range.
Carson did not object at sentencing to the ACCA designation or to the plea’s stipulation that the § 922(g) count carried a 15-year minimum; the court informed him of the waiver and statutory minimum at plea colloquy.
On appeal Carson argued (relying on Johnson v. United States) that his prior robberies are not violent felonies, so the ACCA enhancement was invalid, making his § 922(g) sentence unlawful; he sought to avoid enforcement of his appeal waiver.
The Seventh Circuit enforced the appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal, holding the challenge to the ACCA designation could not be resolved without deciding the very merits barred by the waiver and Carson had not shown a miscarriage of justice or involuntariness of plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Carson)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether Carson may evade his plea agreement’s appeal waiver to argue his prior convictions are not violent felonies under Johnson, rendering his ACCA sentence unlawful	The waiver should not be enforced because the ACCA enhancement is invalid under Johnson, so his sentence exceeds the lawful statutory maximum	The appeal waiver is valid and bars Carson’s challenge; resolving his claim would require deciding the merits of the waived appeal	Waiver enforced; claim barred because determining illegality of the sentence requires resolving the merits of the waived issue
Whether this case is an exception (miscarriage of justice) warranting waiver disregard (e.g., like Gibson or Litos)	Carson asserts his sentence exceeds statutory maximum and thus causes a miscarriage of justice, so waiver should not apply	Court distinguishes prior cases and says no similar, exceptional circumstances exist; Carson received plea benefits and did not claim involuntariness	No miscarriage-of-justice exception; dismissal affirmed because Carson got plea benefits and did not challenge plea voluntariness

Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (constitutional rule narrowing "violent felony" definition under ACCA)
United States v. Gibson, 356 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2004) (appeal waiver inapplicable where sentence plainly exceeds statutory maximum)
United States v. Litos, 847 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2017) (rare allowance to benefit appellant despite waiver to avoid miscarriage of justice where related co-defendant rulings created inequity)
United States v. Worthen, 842 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2016) (appeal waiver enforced where resolving alleged sentencing illegality would require deciding merits of waived claim)
United States v. Gonzalez, 765 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2014) (guilty-plea-based waivers enforceable absent involuntariness or narrowly applicable exceptions)
United States v. Zitt, 714 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2013) (appeal waiver doctrine and limits explained)
United States v. Sakellarion, 649 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2011) (same; plea-agreement waivers generally enforced)