Reported / Citable
Background
Kenleone Joe Nyandoro pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). His plea agreement provided that the government would dismiss the charge if he successfully completed a rehabilitation program, but that the case would proceed to sentencing if he failed to complete it. Nyandoro also waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction or sentence, subject to specified exceptions.
After six months in the program, Nyandoro fled a traffic stop at more than 100 miles per hour and was removed from the program. The district court denied his motion to withdraw his plea and sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The Fifth Circuit initially affirmed, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded for reconsideration after recognizing in Hunter v. United States a narrow miscarriage-of-justice exception to sentencing appeal waivers.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit again affirmed. Assuming without deciding that Hunter’s miscarriage-of-justice exception applies to appeals challenging convictions, the court held that Nyandoro did not satisfy its demanding standard. None of his arguments that § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment, is unconstitutionally vague, or exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority identified an obvious error that no reasonable judge could make.
The court explained that precedent supported reasonable rejection of Nyandoro’s vagueness and Commerce Clause theories. His Second Amendment claim was also reasonably debatable because precedent recognized constitutional applications of § 922(g)(3), including disarming presently intoxicated people, and the record included Nyandoro’s admission of daily marijuana use and evidence of marijuana use on the day of the firearm possession. The court did not decide whether § 922(g)(3) was constitutional as applied to him. It also declined to reopen its prior ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plea withdrawal, because that issue fell outside the Supreme Court’s remand and Nyandoro’s newly cited authority did not alter the Carr-factor analysis.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit assumed without deciding that the miscarriage-of-justice exception to sentencing appeal waivers may extend to conviction appeals.
- A constitutional challenge does not overcome an appeal waiver unless the alleged error is obvious and sufficiently egregious to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
- The court characterized Nyandoro’s challenges to § 922(g)(3) as debatable rather than obvious and therefore enforced his appeal waiver.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Supreme Court’s miscarriage-of-justice exception narrowly and confirms that ordinary uncertainty about a statute’s constitutionality will not defeat an otherwise valid appeal waiver. A defendant must identify an error that existing law makes unmistakable, not merely present a substantial or unresolved constitutional argument.
The opinion also leaves two important questions unanswered: whether Hunter applies to conviction appeals at all, and whether § 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to Nyandoro. The Fifth Circuit resolved the appeal solely on the appeal-waiver standard and the limited scope of the Supreme Court’s remand.