United States v. Wilfredo Lugo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: 24-11834
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-11834 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2025 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11834 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WILFREDO LUGO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00347-CEH-UAM-8 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-11834 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11834

Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Wilfredo Lugo appeals his 92-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and distribution, of cocaine and fentanyl. He contends that the dis- trict court erred at sentencing by applying the career-offender en- hancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, by failing to grant a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), and by failing to adequately consider and weigh the sentencing factors. The government moves to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Lugo knowingly and voluntarily waived these grounds for appeal in his plea agreement. After careful re- view, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. We review de novo the validity and scope of an appeal- waiver provision. King v. United States, 41 F.4th 1363, 1366 (11th Cir. 2022). Sentence appeal waivers are enforceable if they are made knowingly and voluntarily. Id. at 1367. To enforce a waiver, “[t]he government must show that either (1) the district court spe- cifically 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 signif- icance of the waiver.” United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th Cir. 1993). “We have consistently enforced knowing and vol- untary appeal waivers according to their terms.” United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006). USCA11 Case: 24-11834 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2025 Page: 3 of 4

24-11834 Opinion of the Court 3

Here, the government has shown that the appeal waiver is enforceable. Among the promises exchanged in the plea agree- ment, in a provision titled and underlined, “Defendant’s Waiver of Right to Appeal the Sentence,” Lugo “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,” except the grounds that the sentence (a) exceeded the guideline range “as determined by the Court,” (b) exceeded the statutory maximum, or (c) violated the Eighth Amendment. In addition, Lugo would be released from the waiver if the government ap- pealed. Lugo initialed the bottom of each page of the plea agree- ment, and he and his attorney signed the final page under a certifi- cation stating that he fully understood the plea agreement’s terms. Then, during the plea colloquy, a magistrate judge ques- tioned Lugo about the terms of the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver. The magistrate judge explained that Lugo was giv- ing up his right to appeal his sentence “to a higher court on all grounds[,] including the ground that the Court made a mistake in determining your applicable guideline range,” except on “four very limited grounds,” which the judge accurately summarized. Lugo confirmed that he understood the appeal rights he was giving up, that he did not have any questions about the waiver, and that he made the waiver freely and voluntarily. The magistrate judge found that Lugo’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and the district court accepted the plea without objection. USCA11 Case: 24-11834 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 24-11834

Because Lugo was specifically questioned about the waiver, and it is otherwise clear from the record that he understood the waiver’s full significance, we enforce the waiver according to its terms. See Bascomb, 451 F.3d at 1294; Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351. And those terms plainly prohibit Lugo’s challenge. Lugo expressly waived his right to appeal his sentence “on any ground,” except for four narrow exceptions. But none of the exceptions apply here be- cause the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum or the guideline range as determined by the court, the government has not appealed, and no Eighth Amendment challenge is presented. Because Lugo’s arguments do not fall within any exception to his appeal waiver, which he made knowingly and voluntarily, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss. DISMISSED.