Hunter v. United States · ¶27

Contrary to the Government's assertion, we doubt that such a confined exception to the rule of enforcement will “open the foodgates” to “waived appeals.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 60, 87; see id., at 62. As earlier noted, many Circuits already place a miscarriage-of-justice limit on appeal waivers. See supra, at 721, n. 1. The Government has offered no evidence that those courts are awash with appeals, much less ones demanding serious litigation. Nor is that dearth of support surprising. The Circuits using the miscarriage-ofjustice approach have mainly understood it to erect a substantial barrier, just as we require today. See, e. g., United States v. Santiago, 769 F. 3d 1, 8 (CA1 2014) (The “exception is meant only for egregious cases and is to be applied sparingly”); United States v. Andis, 333 F. 3d 886, 891 (CA8 2003) (The exception is “a narrow one” because appeal waivers “should not be…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.