Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Meko Joevell Rice pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi sentenced him to 240 months in custody and three years of supervised release.
Rice appealed his sentence. The government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver in Rice’s plea agreement or, alternatively, for summary affirmance. Rice acknowledged that Fifth Circuit precedent supported dismissal but urged the court to follow a concurrence in United States v. Melancon. He also argued that the disparity between his sentence and that of an equally culpable co-defendant constituted a miscarriage of justice under Hunter v. United States.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit enforced Rice’s appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal. Reviewing enforceability de novo, the court concluded that the record established both that Rice knowingly and voluntarily entered the waiver and that its plain language covered his sentencing challenge.
The panel explained that it was bound by the Melancon majority and later decisions consistently enforcing valid appeal waivers. It also held that Rice’s claimed sentencing disparity did not satisfy Hunter’s high bar for a miscarriage of justice. Any error in applying sentencing enhancements to Rice but not his co-defendant was a standard error in applying sentencing law and therefore could not invalidate the waiver. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss and denied its alternative motion for summary affirmance.
Key Takeaways
- A knowing and voluntary appeal waiver is enforceable when its plain language covers the issue raised on appeal.
- Fifth Circuit panels remain bound by the Melancon majority and subsequent decisions enforcing valid appeal waivers, not the reasoning of a concurrence.
- An alleged disparity caused by the application of sentencing enhancements to one co-defendant ordinarily does not meet Hunter’s miscarriage-of-justice standard for overcoming an appeal waiver.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Hunter does not broadly authorize appellate review of ordinary sentencing disputes despite a valid appeal waiver. Claims involving guideline enhancements or disparities between co-defendants remain subject to waiver unless they rise beyond standard sentencing-law errors to the demanding level of a miscarriage of justice.