USCA11 Case: 22-10874 Date Filed: 11/29/2022 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10874 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DERRICK GUFFIE, a.k.a. Corey Bernard Willis, a.k.a. Corey Moore,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia USCA11 Case: 22-10874 Date Filed: 11/29/2022 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10874

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00086-ELR-JKL-1 ____________________

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Derrick Guffie appeals the 188-month total sentence that he received for possession with intent to distribute methampheta- mine, possession of a firearm as an Armed Career Criminal, and possession with intent to distribute heroin. The government has filed a motion to dismiss Guffie’s appeal, based on the sentence ap- peal waiver in Guffie’s plea agreement. We now grant that motion because Guffie’s appeal waiver is enforceable. We review the validity of a sentence appeal waiver de novo. United States v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 2008). A sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily. United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th Cir. 1993). To establish that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily, the government must show either that: (1) the district court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver dur- ing the plea colloquy; or (2) the record makes clear that the defend- ant otherwise understood the full significance of the waiver. Id. Here, the government has shown both. In Guffie’s plea agreement, a section titled and underlined, “Limited Waiver of Appeal” stated that Guffie expressly waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his convictions or sentences “on any ground, except that [he could] file a direct appeal of an USCA11 Case: 22-10874 Date Filed: 11/29/2022 Page: 3 of 4

22-10874 Opinion of the Court 3

upward departure or upward variance above the sentencing guide- line range as calculated by the [d]istrict [c]ourt,” raise claims re- garding his counsel’s ineffective assistance, or file a cross-appeal if the government initiated a direct appeal. Another section of the agreement stated that there were “no other agreements, promises, representations, or understandings between [Guffie] and the gov- ernment.” In a statement attached to the plea agreement, Guffie signed a statement that confirmed that he had read the agreement, care- fully reviewed each part with his attorney, understood the terms and conditions therein, and voluntarily agreed to those terms and conditions. He confirmed that he understood the appeal waiver and the narrow exceptions in which he could appeal. He indicated that no one had threatened or forced him to plead guilty. And during the change-of-plea agreement Guffie also showed that he understood the appeal waiver and had agreed to it voluntarily. Among other things, the court summarized the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver (which it read into the rec- ord), and confirmed that Guffie understood the entire agreement. The court expressly noted that, under the appeal waiver, Guffie was giving up his right to appeal except on the following grounds: (1) if the court imposed a sentence higher than the guidelines range; (2) if the government appealed; or (3) if he asserted a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. To emphasize the point, the court informed Guffie that he could not appeal “except for those three situations,” to which Guffie confirmed that he understood. USCA11 Case: 22-10874 Date Filed: 11/29/2022 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 22-10874

Guffie also stated at the change-of-plea hearing that his counsel had not made any promises to him of a particular sentence and that he was not aware of any agreements other than the plea agreement. Both Guffie and his counsel said that they had suffi- cient time to discuss the case against Guffie. The court also pro- vided a break in the proceeding in which the court allowed Guffie to speak privately with his counsel. After that break, the court again confirmed that Guffie had sufficient time to speak with his counsel and that he was satisfied with her representation. At sentencing, over Guffie’s objection, the district court de- termined that Guffie’s prior convictions qualified him as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act and sen- tenced him under that enhancement. On appeal, Guffie seeks to challenge that determination. But the sentence appeal waiver precludes that, as Guffie’s challenge falls into none of the three exceptions that the sentence appeal waiver sets forth. And the record reflects both that the district court specifically questioned Guffie about the sentence appeal waiver during the plea colloquy and that Guffie understood the full significance of the waiver. See Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351. Not only that, but the record shows that Guffie entered his agreement to the sentence appeal waiver voluntarily. Thus, the waiver is valid, and so we apply it. We therefore GRANT the government’s motion to dismiss. APPEAL DISMISSED.