USCA11 Case: 21-13763 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13763 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID LEVON MASSEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:20-cr-00129-SPC-MRM-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13763 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13763

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. As the record reveals, Massey knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be en- forced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error). During the change- of-plea hearing, the magistrate judge explained the appeal waiver to Massey, including all the exceptions.1 Massey confirmed that he had conferred with counsel, he understood that he was waiving his right to appeal his sentence, and he was doing so freely and volun- tarily. See United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th Cir. 2001) (appeal waiver will be enforced where the waiver provision

1 The appeal waiver found in Massey’s plea agreement provided that he “ex- pressly waive[d] the right to appeal [his] sentence on any ground, including the ground that the [c]ourt erred in determining the applicable guidelines range.” The waiver provided certain exceptions, allowing Massey to appeal if: (1) the sentence exceeded his “applicable guidelines range as determined by the [c]ourt”; (2) the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum; or (3) the sen- tence violated the Eighth Amendment. It further provided that, if the govern- ment appealed the sentence, Massey was released from the waiver. USCA11 Case: 21-13763 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 3 of 4

21-13763 Opinion of the Court 3

was discussed during the plea colloquy and defendant agreed that she understood the provision and entered into it freely and volun- tarily); Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d at 1296 (appeal waiver will be en- forced where magistrate judge specifically questioned defendant about the appeal waiver during the plea colloquy, explained its sig- nificance, and confirmed that defendant understood). Further, Massey signed the agreement, which contained the appeal waiver, further confirming that he had either read it, or had it read to him, and fully understood its terms. On this record, Massey agreed to the sentence appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and as a re- sult, it is enforceable unless an exception applies. See Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1350–51. The exceptions to Massey’s appeal waiver do not apply. For starters, Massey’s 222-month sentence does not exceed his statu- tory maximum of 40 years’ imprisonment and is within the guide- line range as calculated by the district court. As for the arguments he now raises -- concerning his objection to the career-offender en- hancement and whether the district court imposed a procedurally and substantively reasonable sentence -- they do not present the kind of extreme circumstances we’ve contemplated that are not waivable. See United States v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1064, 1068 (11th Cir. 2008) (suggesting that a defendant may not waive his right to appellate review of a sentence imposed in “extreme circum- stances,” in excess of the statutory maximum, or based on an im- permissible factor, such as race) (quotations omitted). Nor does USCA11 Case: 21-13763 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 21-13763

Massey claim that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment, and the government has not appealed. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss Massey’s appeal because it is barred by the appeal waiver. DISMISSED.