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 followed by three years of supervised release.
Rice appealed his sentence despite an appeal waiver in his plea agreement. The government moved to dismiss the appeal based on that waiver or, alternatively, for summary affirmance. Rice acknowledged that dismissal was supported by Fifth Circuit precedent but urged the court to follow a concurrence criticizing appeal waivers. He also argued that the disparity between his sentence and his allegedly equally culpable co-defendant’s sentence constituted a miscarriage of justice.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Rice’s appeal waiver was enforceable. Reviewing de novo, the court concluded that the record established both requirements for enforcement: Rice entered the waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and its plain language covered his appeal.
The court rejected Rice’s reliance on the concurrence in United States v. Melancon because the panel was bound by that case’s majority opinion and later decisions consistently enforcing valid appeal waivers. It also held that Rice’s sentencing-disparity argument did not satisfy the demanding miscarriage-of-justice standard. Any error in applying sentencing enhancements to Rice but not his co-defendant was a conventional sentencing-law error that could not invalidate the waiver.
The court granted the government’s opposed motion to dismiss, denied its alternative motion for summary affirmance, and dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal waiver is enforceable when it was knowing and voluntary and its plain language covers the appeal.
- A panel remains bound by controlling majority opinions and cannot adopt the reasoning of a concurrence instead.
- An alleged sentencing disparity or ordinary error in applying sentencing enhancements does not, without more, meet the miscarriage-of-justice threshold for disregarding an appeal waiver.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s practice of enforcing valid plea-agreement appeal waivers even when a defendant alleges errors that materially affected the sentence. Defendants seeking to avoid a waiver under a miscarriage-of-justice theory must identify something more exceptional than a routine guidelines dispute or disparity between co-defendants.