Reported / Citable
Background
Devin Chaney pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and armed bank robbery. His plea agreement waived his right to appeal except for a sentence above the statutory maximum or a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the government dismissed the other nine counts in the indictment.
Chaney nevertheless appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court improperly classified him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The Fifth Circuit initially enforced the waiver and dismissed the appeal, but the Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded after holding in Hunter v. United States that an appeal waiver is unenforceable when enforcing it would leave in place an egregious error amounting to a miscarriage of justice.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit again enforced Chaney’s appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal. It held that any error in treating Chaney’s 2019 Louisiana drug-distribution conviction as a career-offender predicate did not satisfy Hunter’s demanding miscarriage-of-justice standard, which is reserved for extreme, obvious, and egregious errors that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.
The court explained that ordinary mistakes in applying the Sentencing Guidelines do not invalidate an appeal waiver. The unpublished Fifth Circuit decisions Chaney cited were issued after his sentencing, were not binding, and applied plain-error principles rather than Hunter’s stricter waiver standard. The alleged error also was not obvious because controlling Fifth Circuit precedent had not resolved the relevant definition of a controlled-substance offense and other circuits were divided on the issue.
The panel also rejected Chaney’s procedural argument. Although the district court resolved his objection quickly, Chaney had an opportunity to object and explain his position. That process did not approach the absence of minimally civilized procedure necessary to establish a miscarriage of justice under Hunter.
Key Takeaways
- After Hunter, the Fifth Circuit recognizes a miscarriage-of-justice exception to appellate waivers, but the exception applies only to extreme, obvious, and egregious errors.
- An ordinary or debatable error in calculating a Sentencing Guidelines range does not overcome an otherwise enforceable appeal waiver.
- A district court’s prompt rejection of a sentencing objection does not establish a miscarriage of justice when the defendant had an opportunity to present the objection.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Hunter created only a narrow safety valve, not a general route around knowing and voluntary appeal waivers. Defendants ordinarily cannot obtain appellate review of disputed Guidelines calculations merely by characterizing them as miscarriages of justice.
The opinion also indicates that an alleged error is unlikely to meet Hunter’s standard when controlling circuit law has not resolved the issue, nonbinding decisions provide the principal support, or other federal courts remain divided.