The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on the appeal of Davantae London, who was convicted of robbing several Wal-Mart stores at gunpoint in the Houston area. The court dismissed his appeal due to an appeal waiver he signed as part of a plea agreement. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the enforceability of appeal waivers in criminal cases, particularly in light of a recent Supreme Court decision.
In this case, London had initially entered into a plea agreement with the government, which involved dropping nine counts from his indictment in exchange for his guilty plea. As part of this agreement, London waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. However, he later attempted to appeal, leading the government to file a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Fifth Circuit granted this motion, but the case took a turn following a Supreme Court ruling in another case.
The Supreme Court's decision in Hunter v. United States, issued on June 29, 2026, provided a new perspective on appeal waivers. The Court stated that such waivers could be unenforceable if enforcing them would lead to a miscarriage of justice. This ruling prompted the Supreme Court to grant London's petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the Fifth Circuit's judgment, and remand the case back to the lower court for further consideration.
London argued that enforcing his appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice, claiming that the district court made an error by running his federal sentence consecutively to his state sentence. He referenced the Sentencing Guidelines, specifically U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, which he believed were violated in his case. However, the Fifth Circuit ultimately disagreed with his argument.
The court ruled that London's challenge did not meet the criteria for a miscarriage of justice as defined by the Supreme Court in Hunter. The opinion noted that the Hunter Court had provided examples of what could constitute a miscarriage of justice, including sentences that exceed statutory limits or are imposed without proper procedures. The Fifth Circuit stated, "Such standard-fare errors in misapplying sentencing law cannot cancel an appeal waiver—even assuming such an error occurred here."
As a result, the Fifth Circuit enforced London's appeal waiver and dismissed his appeal. This decision underscores the court's commitment to uphold plea agreements and the importance of the appeal waiver process in the judicial system.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond just London. It reinforces the legal principle that defendants who enter into plea agreements must adhere to the terms, including any waivers of the right to appeal. This ruling may deter future attempts by defendants to appeal cases where they have signed such waivers, thereby promoting the integrity of plea agreements.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether London will seek further legal avenues following this decision. The court did not provide specific details about any potential for further appeal or related cases. However, the ruling sets a clear precedent regarding the enforceability of appeal waivers in similar criminal cases.