Feedback

United States V Janer Sibaja

USCA11 Case: 25-10044    Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 07/23/2025   Page: 1 of 2




                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 25-10044
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       JANER ARMANDO SIBAJA,


                                                  Defendant-Appellant.


                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00341-VMC-LSG-6
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 25-10044     Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 07/23/2025    Page: 2 of 2




       2                     Opinion of the Court                25-10044


       Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to
       the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See
       United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1345, 1350–51 (11th Cir.
       1993) (holding that we will enforce sentence appeal waivers if they
       are made “knowingly and voluntarily”); United States v. Boyd,
       975 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020) (noting that the “touchstone”
       for assessing if a sentence appeal waiver was made knowingly and
       voluntarily is whether it was clearly conveyed to the defendant that
       he was giving up his right to appeal under most circumstances);
       United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th Cir. 2001) (con-
       cluding that an appeal waiver was enforceable where the court ref-
       erenced the waiver provision during the plea colloquy and the de-
       fendant confirmed that he understood the waiver provision and en-
       tered into it voluntarily and freely).