United States v. Almando Silda

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 19, 2026
• Docket: 25-12780
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12780 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12780 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

ALMANDO SILDA, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cr-00430-KKM-TGW-7 ____________________

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-12780 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12780

Almando Silva Hernandez 1 appeals his 120-month prison sentence, imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana on a stateless vessel in international waters. See 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(b). He ar- gues that the district court erred by denying relief under the safety valve, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) & U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, and by failing to apply a two-level “zero-point” reduction under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, see U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a). The government has moved to dismiss Silva’s appeal based on the appeal waiver in his written plea agreement. After careful review, we grant the government’s mo- tion and dismiss the appeal. We review de novo the validity and scope of an appeal- waiver provision in a plea agreement. King v. United States, 41 F.4th 1363, 1366 (11th Cir. 2022). Sentence appeal waivers are enforcea- ble if they are made knowingly and voluntarily. Id. at 1367. “The government must show that either (1) the district court specifically questioned the defendant concerning the sentence appeal waiver during the Rule 11 colloquy, or (2) it is manifestly clear from the record that the defendant otherwise understood the full signifi- cance of the waiver.” United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th Cir. 1993). Here, the government has shown that Silva Hernandez’s ap- peal waiver is enforceable and bars this appeal. Silva Hernandez’s

1 During the change-of-plea hearing, Defendant and his attorney stated that

his full name was Almando Reis Silva Hernandez—not “Silda” as alleged in the indictment—so we use the spelling “Silva” in this opinion. USCA11 Case: 25-12780 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 3 of 4

25-12780 Opinion of the Court 3

plea agreement included a provision titled and underlined, “De- fendant’s Waiver of Right to Appeal the Sentence.” In that provi- sion, Silva Hernandez “expressly waive[d] the right to appeal [his] sentence on any ground, including the ground that the Court erred in determining the applicable guidelines range.” He retained the right to appeal on three limited grounds: (1) “the sentence exceeds the defendant’s applicable guidelines range as determined by the Court”; (2) “the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty”; or (3) “the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.” The waiver also did not apply if the government appealed. Silva Hernandez initialed the bottom of each page, and he and his attorney signed a certification stating that Silva Hernandez fully understood the plea agreement’s terms. Then, during the plea colloquy, a magistrate judge ques- tioned Silva Hernandez through an interpreter. The judge specifi- cally addressed the appeal waiver, informing Silva Hernandez that, under the plea agreement, there were “only three things about your sentence that you can appeal,” which the judge then summa- rized accurately. The judge made clear that Silva Hernandez could not “appeal . . . the way the Court calculates the Sentencing Guide- lines.” Silva Hernandez confirmed that he understood and did not have any questions about the waiver, and that he was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily. The district court accepted the plea on the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The record shows that the court “effectively conveyed to [Silva Hernandez] that he was giving up his right to appeal his sentence under most circum- stances.” United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020). USCA11 Case: 25-12780 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12780

Because Silva Hernandez was specifically questioned about the waiver during the plea colloquy, and the record otherwise shows that he understood the waiver’s full significance, we will en- force the waiver according to its terms. See Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351. And Silva Hernandez’s arguments on appeal do not fall within an exception to his appeal waiver. Silva Hernandez’s 120- month sentence did not exceed either the guideline range as deter- mined by the court (135 to 168 months) or the statutory maximum sentence (life), and he does not assert an Eighth Amendment argu- ment. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss. DISMISSED.