Case: 17-12396 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 17-12396
Non-Argument Calendar
__________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cr-00020-MTT-CHW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
DALE D. MARTIN,
Defendant–Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
__________________________
(January 29, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dale Martin appeals the condition on his supervised release that he must
work at least 30 hours each week.
Case: 17-12396 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 2 of 2
However, in his plea agreement, Martin waived his right to appeal
sentencing issues, except for the right to appeal a sentence that exceeds the
advisory guidelines range. The District Court questioned Martin under oath and
concluded that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. We agree
with that determination. See United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296
(11th Cir. 2005) (holding that “[a]n appeal waiver includes the waiver of the right
to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error”); United States v.
Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that a sentence waiver
is enforceable if it was made knowingly and voluntarily). The District Court
sentenced Martin to the advisory guideline range, which rendered inapplicable the
exception to his appeal waiver. Therefore, the appeal waiver bars the present
appeal. See United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1088 (11th Cir 2003) (noting
that “the conditions of supervised release are a part” of a sentence).
Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the
appeal waiver in the Appellant’s plea agreement is
GRANTED.
2