United States v. Ana Romero

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-12481
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12481 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12481 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

ANA ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cr-00076-BJD-SJH-1 ____________________

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ana Romero appeals her 21-month prison sentence for con- spiring to commit wire fraud and to defraud the IRS. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1349. The government moves to dismiss Romero’s appeal USCA11 Case: 25-12481 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12481

based on the sentence appeal waiver in her plea agreement. We conclude that the appeal-waiver provision is enforceable, and that no exception to the waiver applies, so we grant the government’s motion to dismiss. 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). We enforce knowing and voluntary appeal waiv- ers “according to their terms.” United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006). Here, the government has shown that the appeal waiver is enforceable and bars this appeal. Romero’s plea agreement in- cluded a provision titled and underlined, “Defendant’s Waiver of Right to Appeal the Sentence.” In that provision, Romero “ex- pressly waive[d] the right to appeal [her] sentence on any ground, including the ground that the Court erred in determining the ap- plicable guidelines range,” except for certain excluded grounds. Romero could still appeal on the grounds that the sentence (1) “ex- ceed[ed] the “applicable guideline range as determined by the USCA11 Case: 25-12481 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 3 of 4

25-12481 Opinion of the Court 3

Court”; (2) “exceed[ed] the statutory maximum penalty”; or (3) “vi- olate[d] the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.” Also, the waiver did not apply if the government appealed. Romero initialed the bottom of each page, and she and her attorney signed a certifi- cation stating that Romero fully understood the terms of the agree- ment. Then, during the plea colloquy, a magistrate judge ques- tioned Romero about the terms of the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver. The judge explained that, under the waiver, Romero “waive[d] [her] right to appeal [her] sentence on any ground, including that the district judge made a mistake in calcu- lating [her] sentencing guideline range.” The judge elaborated that she was waiving her right to appeal the sentence “except on four narrow grounds,” which the judge accurately summarized from the waiver. Romero confirmed that she understood the waiver, did not have any questions about it, and made the waiver freely and voluntarily. The district court accepted Romero’s guilty plea as knowing and voluntary and adjudicated her guilty. Because Romero was specifically questioned about the waiver during the plea colloquy, and it’s otherwise clear from the record that she understood the waiver’s full significance, we will enforce the waiver according to its terms. See Bascomb, 451 F.3d at 1294; Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351. Romero’s appeal does not fit within any exception to her ap- peal waiver. She argues that the court failed to properly consider USCA11 Case: 25-12481 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12481

home confinement and imposed a substantively unreasonable sen- tence, but she does not contend that the sentence exceeded the guidelines range or the statutory maximum, or that it violated the Eighth Amendment. Because the terms of Romero’s appeal waiver bar her appeal, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss. DISMISSED.