Reported / Citable
Background
Devin Chaney pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and armed bank robbery. His plea agreement waived his right to appeal except as to a sentence above the statutory maximum or a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the government dismissed the other nine counts of the eleven-count 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 in light of Hunter v. United States, which recognized a narrow miscarriage-of-justice exception to appellate waivers.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that the district court clearly or obviously erred in treating Chaney’s 2019 Louisiana conviction for distributing a controlled dangerous substance as a career-offender predicate. The Louisiana marijuana offense covered hemp, while the relevant federal definition did not, so the state offense did not qualify under § 4B1.1.
The court nevertheless held that the error did not satisfy Hunter’s demanding miscarriage-of-justice standard. It was an ordinary Guidelines-calculation error, not the kind of extreme, obvious, and egregious defect that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. The district court’s prompt rejection of Chaney’s objection also did not deprive him of the minimum civilized procedure required by Hunter because he had an opportunity to object and explain his position.
The panel therefore enforced Chaney’s appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal. It also denied rehearing, withdrew its September 18, 2026 panel opinion, and substituted this opinion.
Key Takeaways
- A clear or obvious Guidelines error does not necessarily qualify as a miscarriage of justice sufficient to overcome an appeal waiver.
- Chaney’s Louisiana drug conviction was not a valid career-offender predicate because the state offense included hemp while the federal controlled-substance definition did not.
- A district court’s swift rejection of a sentencing objection does not amount to an absence of minimum civilized procedure when the defendant had an opportunity to present the objection.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores how narrowly the Fifth Circuit applies the Supreme Court’s miscarriage-of-justice exception to appeal waivers. Even an identifiable error that materially affects a Guidelines classification may remain unreviewable when it is the type of ordinary sentencing mistake contemplated by the waiver.
Defendants seeking to bypass an appellate waiver must therefore show more than plain or clear error. The asserted defect must be an extreme failure—such as an unlawful sentence, a blatant constitutional violation, or a fundamentally uncivilized procedure—that threatens the integrity and public reputation of the judicial system.