Background
Robert J. Manley, Jr. pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and fentanyl. His plea agreement waived his right to appeal his sentence except for claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or an illegal sentence. The district court imposed a 114-month prison term, six months above the parties’ stipulated advisory Guidelines range of 87 to 108 months.
Manley raised two sentencing arguments on appeal. First, he contended that the government violated a pre-plea email agreement that a Guidelines sentence would be acceptable when it later requested an upward variance. Second, he argued that after he withdrew objections to the presentence report in exchange for a stipulation concerning Guidelines adjustments, the government should not have been allowed to rely on previously disputed facts when seeking an upward variance without proving them at sentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal as barred by Manley’s appeal waiver. Manley did not dispute that he knowingly and voluntarily entered the waiver, did not invoke any of its three exceptions, and did not argue that his claims fell outside its scope. The court therefore considered only whether enforcing the waiver would cause a miscarriage of justice.
The court held that neither claim met that standard. The signed plea agreement expressly allowed either party to request any lawful sentence, including a variance, and Manley acknowledged at sentencing that the government could seek one. As to the presentence-report facts, Manley withdrew his objections, stated that matters involving him could be considered, and received the stipulated Guidelines calculation that conditioned his withdrawal. Enforcing the waiver under those circumstances did not produce an obvious error that would undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Key Takeaways
- A knowing and voluntary appeal waiver generally bars sentencing claims within its scope unless enforcement would cause a miscarriage of justice.
- A signed plea agreement expressly permitting either party to seek a variance defeated Manley’s argument based on an earlier email concerning a Guidelines sentence.
- After withdrawing factual objections to a presentence report and receiving the agreed Guidelines calculation, Manley could not avoid his appeal waiver by challenging consideration of those facts under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that ordinary claims of sentencing error generally will not overcome a valid appeal waiver. It also illustrates the importance of the final written plea agreement and a defendant’s statements at sentencing: both can foreclose later arguments based on earlier negotiations or withdrawn objections.