Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
300K followers
1.9K following
19K posts
Subscribe to www.lawdork.com for SCOTUS, Trump, LGBTQ, criminal justice, and other legal news. / Email: [email protected] / Signal: crg.32 / About me: Sober. Queer. Bipolar. Buckeye. / He/him.
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Reposted by Chris Geidner
Reposted by Chris Geidner
Reposted by Chris Geidner
![QUESTIONS PRESENTED
This Court has recognized that "no appeal waiver serves as an absolute bar to all appellate claims." Garza v.
Idaho, 586 U.S. 232, 238 (2019). But the Court has
"ma[de] no statement... on what particular exceptions [to appeal waivers] may be required." Id. at 238-39 & n.6.
In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed its precedent, holding that there are only two grounds on which defendants who sign general appeal waivers may challenge their sentence on appeal: (1) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) claims that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits adopt a similarly narrow view of the exceptions to general appeal waivers. In stark conflict, the First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits permit defendants who sign general appeal waivers to raise a broad range of constitutional challenges to their sentences beyond the limited exceptions recognized by the Fifth Circuit and the other courts on its side of the circuit split.
The Fifth Circuit below also reaffirmed its precedent holding that an appeal waiver applies even when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object to that advice.
Although other circuits agree with the Fifth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit squarely holds otherwise, releasing defendants from appeal waivers in identical circumstances.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory max-imum.
2. Whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreicjwexpekfhykn5emclm2ln5jby6q6ajunrt2j4c4n4xapj4br2ay@jpeg)
![TEXT ORDER: DENIED. The Court is required to continue its constitutional
functions, and therefore the Motion is Stay 69 is DENIED. Department of Justice
contingency plan states: "If a court denies such a request [to stay or continue] and
orders a case to continue, the Government will comply with the court's order, which
would constitute express legal authorization for the activity to continue.". So
Ordered by District Judge Mary S. McElroy on 10/10/2025. (Potter, Carrie)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreidu6fjjiyibsxirz3zpjmjufbhr7tgbswycf3ow7xlb35rbgkh57m@jpeg)
![Weighing the competing interests in this case, the court finds that the harm to Plaintiffs in
staying the proceedings would outweigh the harm of denying the stay, particularly given, per Department of Justice policy, that attorneys may continue to work on this matter following the
denial of this Motion.
I.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Stay of Proceedings [Doc. No. 183] is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 9, 2025
/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreihzgylhklfxs6h67j2asyhyaj73i7evymrslbky3nduc5vow2c3qi@jpeg)
Reposted by Chris Geidner
Reposted by Chris Geidner
Reposted by Chris Geidner
