In this case, the Court will determine whether petitioner Hunter, a criminal defendant, may appeal his sentence, despite agreeing to waive his right to appeal when he entered a plea agreement with the United States government. The lower court determined that Hunter’s waiver prevented his appeal, even though he argues his sentence is unconstitutional. Hunter asserts that because plea agreements are like contracts, the Court should recognize that doctrines which make a contract invalid can also make a plea agreement’s appeal waiver invalid. Additionally, Hunter separately claims that the District Court’s statement during sentencing, which informed him that he retained the right to appeal, should invalidate his appeal waiver because the government did not object. The government argues that applying contract defenses to appeal waivers is not supported by the law, and that none of Hunter’s stated contract doctrines apply in this case. The government also maintains that there is no legal basis for the District Court’s statement to modify the appeal waiver, and that the District Court’s statement pertained to other appealable claims that Hunter did not raise. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the rights of criminal defendants, their leverage during plea negotiations, and the availability of appeals.
