Background
Detectives searching Xavier Murry’s residence found a large quantity of drugs, digital scales, and a pistol. Murry pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. His plea agreement broadly waived his right to appeal nonjurisdictional sentencing issues, except when the sentence exceeded the Guidelines range established at sentencing and he made a contemporaneous objection.
The district court calculated an advisory range of 140 to 175 months but imposed a 204-month sentence. It cited the quantity and variety of drugs, cash, firearm possession, and Murry’s criminal history, including prior violence against women. After imposing sentence, the court specifically reminded Murry that an objection was required to preserve an appeal under the agreement. Following consultation with counsel, Murry personally confirmed that he did not want to appeal, and counsel did not object. Murry nevertheless appealed, arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court gave excessive weight to his criminal history.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal under Murry’s appeal waiver. His substantive-reasonableness challenge fell within the waiver because he failed to make the required contemporaneous objection. The plea-hearing transcript also established that Murry knowingly and voluntarily accepted the waiver after reviewing the agreement with counsel and receiving an explanation of the district court’s authority to vary upward.
Enforcing the waiver did not produce a miscarriage of justice under the Supreme Court’s decision in Hunter v. United States. That exception requires an obvious, egregious sentencing error of a kind that would bring the judicial system into disrepute and undermine public confidence. The district court’s decision to vary upward based in part on the serious nature of Murry’s prior crimes did not meet that demanding standard, particularly where Murry did not object below and did not address the appeal waiver in his appellate brief.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing appeal waiver is enforceable when the challenged issue falls within its scope, the defendant entered it knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcement would not cause a miscarriage of justice.
- Murry could not invoke the waiver’s exception for an above-Guidelines sentence because he expressly declined to make the required contemporaneous objection.
- The miscarriage-of-justice exception sets a high bar and does not permit ordinary substantive-reasonableness review of a sentence supported by permissible sentencing considerations.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that courts will enforce the precise conditions attached to exceptions in appellate waivers. A defendant who must object contemporaneously to preserve an appeal cannot decline to object at sentencing and later obtain review of the same issue.
It also applies the Supreme Court’s demanding miscarriage-of-justice standard, limiting relief to obvious and egregious sentencing errors that threaten public confidence in the judiciary.