United States v. Edmond

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994 · Constitutional Law

40 F.3d 309

Updated July 19, 2026

conlawappeal waiversentencing guidelinesplea agreementswaiver of appealplea agreementsentencingcareer offender

Facts

Khaton pled guilty under a written plea agreement to four counts of armed bank robbery, one count of unarmed bank robbery, and one count of using a firearm during a crime of violence. In that agreement, he waived his right to appeal "any sentence within the discretion of the district judge." At sentencing, the district court classified him as a career offender based on three prior convictions and applied a two-level obstruction-of-justice adjustment based on his escape from custody. Khaton sought a downward departure on the ground that career offender status overrepresented his criminal history and also sought a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, but the district court denied both requests and imposed 262 months' imprisonment at the low end of the career-offender range.

Issue

Did Khaton's plea agreement waiver of the right to appeal "any sentence within the discretion of the district judge" bar his appeal challenging the district court's refusal to depart downward and refusal to grant an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction? More generally, what does that waiver language cover under the Sentencing Guidelines?

Rule

A plea agreement provision waiving appeal of any sentence "within the discretion of the district judge" is interpreted in light of the Sentencing Guidelines to bar appeals from sentences imposed in faithful adherence to the Guidelines' framework. The waiver does not bar appeals alleging obviously improper deviations outside the discretion permitted by the Guidelines, but it does bar challenges to matters committed to guideline-based sentencing discretion, including refusal to depart downward and denial of acceptance of responsibility where the sentence remains within the Guidelines' permitted discretion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, Marcus Hale pleaded guilty in federal court to robbery-related offenses under a written agreement stating that he waived any appeal of "any sentence within the discretion of the district judge." At sentencing, the judge correctly calculated the guideline range, declined Marcus's request for a downward departure based on an overstated criminal history, and imposed a sentence at the bottom of that range.

If Marcus appeals only the refusal to depart downward, what is the strongest argument about the waiver's effect?

Explanation. The controlling rule interprets a waiver of appeal for any sentence within the district judge's discretion in light of the Sentencing Guidelines. A sentence imposed in faithful adherence to the Guidelines is within that discretion, and a refusal to depart downward is such a discretionary guideline determination. The majority rejected reading the waiver as either eliminating all appeals or covering only already-unreviewable matters.