Background
Rashon Jermaine Harris pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(C). His plea agreement waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence on any ground other than ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court applied several Sentencing Guidelines enhancements, including a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury while fleeing law enforcement, and sentenced Harris to 240 months in prison.
The Fifth Circuit initially dismissed Harris’s challenge to the enhancements based on his appeal waiver. After the Supreme Court held in Hunter v. United States that an appeal waiver is unenforceable when enforcing it would leave in place an egregious error amounting to a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded Harris’s case for reconsideration.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit again enforced Harris’s appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal. It concluded that Harris knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights. Although Harris pleaded guilty on the same day as his initial appearance on the refiled charge, he had been indicted months earlier on the same underlying charge, signed an agreement containing an unambiguous waiver, and confirmed in court that he had reviewed and understood it.
The court also held that the § 3C1.2 enhancement did not present the kind of miscarriage of justice that could overcome the waiver. Testimony showed that Harris fled by driving through a residential yard or yards, at least partly in reverse, in an area where his juvenile nephew had recently walked. Even if applying the enhancement were erroneous, the asserted error would be an ordinary Guidelines error—not an egregious error producing a sentence above the statutory maximum, a blatant constitutional violation, or a proceeding lacking minimum civilized procedure.
Key Takeaways
- Under Hunter, only an obvious and egregious sentencing error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute can defeat an otherwise valid appeal waiver.
- A defendant’s sworn confirmation that he reviewed and understood a clear appeal waiver strongly supports a finding that the waiver was knowing and voluntary.
- A disputed or even erroneous Guidelines enhancement ordinarily constitutes a standard sentencing error and does not invalidate an appeal waiver.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how narrowly the Fifth Circuit applies Hunter’s miscarriage-of-justice exception. Defendants subject to valid appeal waivers generally cannot obtain appellate review merely by alleging that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines.
The opinion also confirms that U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 does not require actual injury. Although mere flight alone is insufficient, conduct creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury may support the enhancement even when no one was harmed.