Collateral-Review Waivers Remain Enforceable Against Post-Davis § 924(c) Challenges

Commentary on United States v. Jones, 21-11185 (5th Cir. Aug. 4 2025)

Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Jones, re-affirmed that a broad waiver of appellate and collateral-review rights in a plea agreement is enforceable even when, subsequent to the plea, the Supreme Court announces a new substantive rule that would otherwise undermine one of the defendant’s convictions.

Defendant Damien Antione Jones pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and to using a firearm during that conspiracy, the latter conviction resting on the now-defunct “residual clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). After the Supreme Court invalidated that clause in United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019), Jones sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied the motion as barred by Jones’s appeal-and-collateral-review waiver. The Fifth Circuit has now affirmed, following its earlier decision involving a codefendant (United States v. Jones, 134 F.4th 831 (5th Cir. 2025)).

The opinion delivers two principal messages: (1) post-plea changes in law—no matter how substantive—do not vitiate a knowing and voluntary waiver, and (2) the Fifth Circuit continues to resist adopting a freestanding “miscarriage-of-justice” exception to such waivers.

Summary of the Judgment

• Waiver Enforcement: The panel (Richman and Ho, with Dennis dissenting) enforced Jones’s plea-agreement waiver and held that Davis does not render the waiver unknowing or involuntary.
• Statutory-Maximum Argument Rejected: Jones’s contention that his § 924(c) sentence now exceeds the statutory maximum (post-Davis) was rejected; the court found the waiver barred the claim and that the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum at the time it was imposed.
• Miscarriage-of-Justice Exception Declined: The panel again declined to recognize or apply a miscarriage-of-justice exception to collateral-review waivers.
• Result: District court’s denial of § 2255 relief affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court’s reasoning rested heavily on prior Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court authority:

• United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019) – invalidated the § 924(c) residual clause; provided the substantive rule Jones sought to invoke.
• United States v. Jones, 134 F.4th 831 (5th Cir. 2025) – companion decision involving the codefendant; contains the doctrinal template the panel applied.
• United States v. Barnes, 953 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2020) – reiterated that knowing and voluntary appeal/collateral waivers are generally enforceable with only two limited exceptions (ineffective assistance & sentence exceeding statutory maximum).
• United States v. White, 307 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2002) – early articulation of waiver exceptions.
• United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725 (5th Cir. 2002) and United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997) – establish the principle that the right to appeal is statutory and waivable.
• United States v. Caldwell, 38 F.4th 1161 (5th Cir. 2022) – demonstrates the court’s reluctance to broaden exceptions to waiver.

Legal Reasoning

1. Nature of a Waiver. The court began with the premise that an appeal or collateral-review waiver is a bargained-for contractual term in a plea agreement. Because the right to challenge a conviction is statutory—not constitutional—it can be relinquished.
2. Knowing and Voluntary Standard. Jones affirmed during his plea colloquy that he understood the waiver. Under Rule 11 safeguards, this admission suffices absent extraordinary evidence to the contrary.
3. Effect of an Intervening Change in Law. Echoing the companion case, the panel held that a “known risk” of future legal change does not undermine the voluntariness of a waiver. A defendant knowingly assumes that risk when he trades review rights for the Government’s concessions.
4. Statutory-Maximum Exception. Jones argued that after Davis the statutory maximum for his § 924(c) predicate effectively became zero years, rendering his 84-month sentence illegal. The court rejected the premise: legality is assessed at sentencing, not retroactively. Thus, the statutory maximum exception did not apply.
5. Miscarriage-of-Justice. Although other circuits (e.g., the Ninth) recognize an equitable safety valve, the Fifth Circuit again “declined explicitly to adopt or to reject” such an exception. It found Jones’s briefing deficient and emphasized that he knowingly received a substantial benefit—dismissal of additional firearm counts that carried 50 extra years of mandatory time.

Impact

The decision cements the Fifth Circuit’s position that a broad collateral-review waiver survives even seismic constitutional rulings like Davis. Key anticipated effects include:

• Narrow Path for § 924(c) Davis Relief. Inmate-litigants who signed comparable waivers in the Fifth Circuit will face nearly insurmountable barriers to § 2255 relief.
• Plea-Bargaining Dynamics. Prosecutors may feel emboldened to insist on expansive waivers, knowing they will likely withstand later substantive changes in law.
• Circuit Split Potential. Other circuits (e.g., Fourth, Tenth) have shown more openness to miscarriage-of-justice or “illegal sentence” exceptions. The entrenched Fifth Circuit stance increases the likelihood of Supreme Court review to harmonize the approaches.
• Strategic Counsel Advice. Defense attorneys operating in the Fifth Circuit must warn clients that waiving § 2255 rights could forever bar relief—even if the Supreme Court later invalidates the law underpinning their conviction.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Hobbs Act Robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951): A federal crime covering robbery that affects interstate commerce—often used to reach robberies of businesses dealing in out-of-state goods.
• § 924(c) Residual Clause: Before Davis, this clause treated any felony that “by its nature” involves a risk of physical force as a “crime of violence.” The Supreme Court struck it down as too vague.
• Plea-Agreement Waiver: A contractual term where a defendant surrenders certain rights (appeal, collateral attack) in exchange for concessions from the Government (e.g., dropping counts).
• Collateral Attack (§ 2255 Motion): A procedure akin to habeas corpus that allows federal prisoners to challenge their convictions/sentences after direct appeal.
• Miscarriage-of-Justice Exception: An equitable doctrine (accepted in some circuits) allowing courts to disregard a waiver if enforcing it would produce a fundamental injustice—e.g., imprisoning an actually innocent person.
• Statutory Maximum vs. Guidelines Range: The statutory maximum is the ceiling Congress sets for an offense; the guidelines range is advisory and can never exceed that ceiling.

Conclusion

United States v. Jones underscores the Fifth Circuit’s unwavering commitment to enforce plea-agreement waivers according to their terms. Even a landmark Supreme Court decision like Davis, which transformed the legal landscape of § 924(c), does not unlock the courthouse door for defendants who intentionally closed it as part of their bargain. Unless the Supreme Court or the en banc Fifth Circuit adopts a broader miscarriage-of-justice exception, defendants with similar waivers remain bound by them. The case therefore serves as a cautionary tale and a pivotal precedent in the intersection of plea-bargaining, waiver doctrine, and evolving criminal jurisprudence.