Background
Devin Chaney pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and armed bank robbery. His plea agreement waived his right to appeal except to challenge a sentence above the statutory maximum or raise ineffective assistance of counsel, while the government dismissed the other nine counts of an eleven-count indictment.
Chaney nevertheless appealed his designation 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 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 held that the district court 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 corresponding federal definition did not, making the state offense broader than the federal controlled-substance definition used under the Guidelines.
Even so, the court held that the mistake was an ordinary Guidelines-calculation error, not the extreme, obvious, and egregious error required by Hunter’s miscarriage-of-justice exception. The district court’s prompt rejection of Chaney’s objection also did not deprive him of the minimum civilized procedure contemplated by Hunter because he had an opportunity to object and explain his position. The panel therefore enforced the appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit found that Chaney was erroneously classified as a career offender because his Louisiana drug conviction was not a qualifying controlled-substance predicate under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
- A clear or obvious sentencing error does not necessarily satisfy Hunter’s more demanding miscarriage-of-justice standard for overcoming an appeal waiver.
- A district court’s summary rejection of a sentencing objection does not amount to a miscarriage of justice when the defendant had an opportunity to present the objection and its supporting rationale.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how narrowly the Fifth Circuit will apply Hunter’s exception to otherwise valid appeal waivers. Even an acknowledged error that materially affects a defendant’s Guidelines classification may remain unreviewable when it is characterized as a standard sentencing mistake rather than an extreme defect threatening the integrity or reputation of the judicial system.
For plea negotiations and sentencing appeals, the ruling underscores that defendants who accept broad appellate waivers may be unable to obtain relief for ordinary Guidelines errors, including errors that are clear under controlling law.