Case: 18-14218 Date Filed: 04/26/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14218
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cr-00047-HES-MCR-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WANDA FAYE RATCLIFFE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 26, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The United States moves to dismiss Wanda Faye Ratcliffe’s appeal of her
sentence based on the appeal waiver in her plea agreement. After careful
consideration, we conclude the waiver is enforceable and therefore grant the
government’s motion.
Case: 18-14218 Date Filed: 04/26/2019 Page: 2 of 5
I.
A federal grand jury indicted Ratcliffe on charges stemming from an alleged
conspiracy to illegally structure currency deposits. Pursuant to a written plea
agreement, Ratcliffe agreed to plead guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Structure
Financial Transactions, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 371 and
31 U.S.C.
§§ 5324(a)(1), (3). In exchange, the government agreed to withdraw the remaining
charges and recommend a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
The plea agreement included an appeal waiver. That provision said Ratcliffe
“expressly waive[d] the right to appeal [her] sentence on any ground, including the
ground that the Court erred in determining the applicable guidelines range pursuant
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, except (a) the ground that the sentence
exceeds the defendant’s applicable guidelines range as determined by the Court
pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines; (b) the ground that the
sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty; or (c) the ground that the
sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.” The provision also
said Ratcliffe “is released from h[er] waiver and may appeal the sentence as
authorized by
18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)” “if the government exercises its right to appeal
the sentence imposed.”
A magistrate judge held a change of plea hearing. The magistrate judge
confirmed Ratcliffe read the plea agreement, reviewed it with her attorneys, and
2
Case: 18-14218 Date Filed: 04/26/2019 Page: 3 of 5
signed it, and he ensured Ratcliffe understood she was bound by all its terms. The
magistrate judge specifically reviewed the appeal waiver with Ratcliffe, explaining
that she “expressly waive[d] [her] right to appeal [her] sentence on any ground,
including on the ground that the Court may have erred in determining your
applicable guideline range, pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.” The
magistrate judge noted there were “three exceptions” to the waiver as outlined in
the plea agreement and that “[i]t further reads that if the United States appeals, then
you are released from this waiver. You could also appeal.” Ratcliffe confirmed
that she accepted the appeal waiver voluntarily, and she confirmed that she had no
questions about anything covered in her plea agreement. After the magistrate
judge asked whether Ratcliffe would plead guilty “having heard and understood
everything [he] said,” Ratcliffe pled guilty. Ultimately, the magistrate judge found
that Ratcliffe’s decision to plead guilty was freely and intelligently made.
At sentencing, the district court accepted the plea agreement, calculated
Ratcliffe’s advisory guideline range as 46 to 57 months, granted her motion for a
downward departure or variance based on her mental and emotional condition, see
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.3, and imposed a 24-month term of incarceration.
Ratcliffe filed an appeal, arguing that the district court erred in calculating
her offense level based on the value of the funds involved in her structured
3
Case: 18-14218 Date Filed: 04/26/2019 Page: 4 of 5
transactions. The government moved to dismiss the Ratcliffe’s appeal, asking this
Court to enforce the appeal waiver.
II.
Ratcliffe’s sole argument on appeal challenges the district court’s
determination of her applicable guideline range, an argument foreclosed by the
appeal waiver. Thus, if the appeal waiver is enforceable, we must dismiss her
appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Buchanan,
131 F.3d 1005, 1008–09 (11th Cir.
1997) (per curiam).
We review de novo the validity of a sentence appeal waiver, United States v.
Johnson,
541 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 2008), and we enforce them only when
they are knowing and voluntary, United States v. Bushert,
997 F.2d 1343, 1350
(11th Cir. 1993). To establish a waiver was knowing and voluntary, “the
government must show that either (1) the district court specifically questioned the
defendant concerning the sentence appeal waiver during the [plea] colloquy, or (2)
it is manifestly clear from the record that the defendant otherwise understood the
full significance of the waiver.”
Id. at 1351.
The appeal waiver is enforceable, because it is manifestly clear from the
record that Ratcliffe understood the waiver’s full significance. At the change of
plea hearing, the magistrate judge confirmed that Ratcliffe’s attorney had reviewed
the plea agreement with her and that Ratcliffe read it herself and signed it. The
4
Case: 18-14218 Date Filed: 04/26/2019 Page: 5 of 5
magistrate judge also specifically discussed the appeal waiver with Ratcliffe and
affirmed she had voluntarily agreed to it. Ratcliffe then confirmed she had no
questions about her plea agreement and did not object when the judge asserted she
had heard and understood all that he said.
III.
We therefore GRANT the government’s motion to dismiss Ratcliffe’s
appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
5
