USCA11 Case: 21-10265 Date Filed: 07/21/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 21-10265
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cr-00480-LCB-HNJ-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADRIAN VASEAN HOWLET,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(July 21, 2021)
Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Vasean Howlet appeals his 60-month sentence imposed after he
pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possessing
with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine and was
USCA11 Case: 21-10265 Date Filed: 07/21/2021 Page: 2 of 4
sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. He challenges the district court’s
sentencing determination that he did not qualify for safety-valve relief under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f). The government moves to dismiss the appeal based on the
sentence-appeal waiver in the plea agreement.1
Our review of the record confirms that the district court specifically
questioned Howlet2 about the sentence-appeal waiver during the plea colloquy, and
1
Specifically, the sentence-appeal waiver provided as follows:
In consideration of the recommended disposition of this case, I, ADRIAN
VASEAN HOWLET, hereby waive and give up my right to appeal my conviction
and/or sentence in this case, as well as any fines, restitution, and forfeiture orders,
the Court might impose. Further, I waive and give up the right to challenge my
conviction and/or sentence, any fines, restitution, forfeiture orders imposed or the
manner in which my conviction and/or sentence, any fines, restitution, and
forfeiture orders were determined in any post-conviction proceeding, including,
but not limited to, a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The defendant reserves the right to contest in an appeal or post-conviction
proceeding the following:
(a) Any sentence imposed in excess of the applicable statutory maximum
sentence(s);
(b) Any sentence imposed in excess of the guideline sentencing range
determined by the Court at the time sentence is imposed; and
(c) Ineffective assistance of counsel.
The defendant acknowledges that before giving up these rights, the defendant
discussed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and their application to the
defendant’s case with the defendant’s attorney, who explained them to the
defendant’s satisfaction. The defendant further acknowledges and understands
that the government retains its right to appeal where authorized by statute.
Howlet signed the waiver directly underneath a paragraph that provided that, by signing the
waiver, he was “signify[ing] that [he] fully understand the foregoing paragraphs and that [he]
knowingly and voluntarily enter[ed] into this waiver.”
2
During the plea colloquy, Howlet confirmed that: he was a high school graduate and he
had attended “a half year of college;” he could read, write, and speak English; he was not taking
any medications or substances that might affect his ability to understand the proceedings; and
2
USCA11 Case: 21-10265 Date Filed: 07/21/2021 Page: 3 of 4
Howlet stated that he understood the terms of the waiver. Accordingly, the
sentence-appeal waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made and is enforceable.
United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993) (explaining that
we enforce appeal waivers that are made knowingly and voluntarily and to
demonstrate that a waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily, the government
must show that either (1) the district court specifically questioned the defendant
about the waiver during the plea colloquy; or (2) the record makes clear that the
defendant otherwise understood the full significance of the waiver); see also
United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th Cir. 2001) (enforcing an
appeal waiver where “the waiver provision was referenced during [the defendant’s]
Rule 11 plea colloquy and [the defendant] agreed that she understood the provision
and that she entered into it freely and voluntarily”).
Because Howlet’s claim concerning safety-valve relief does not fall within
any of the exceptions to his valid sentence-appeal waiver, the waiver forecloses
this appeal. See United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir.
2005) (holding that a valid appeal waiver waives the right to appeal “difficult or
debatable legal issues or even blatant error.”). Consequently, we GRANT the
government’s motion to dismiss.
that he was not suffering from any mental, physical, or emotional impairment that would impair
his ability to understand the proceedings.
3
USCA11 Case: 21-10265 Date Filed: 07/21/2021 Page: 4 of 4
APPEAL DISMISSED.
4