“Competency-Aware” Enforcement of Appeal Waivers –
The Legacy of United States v. Tenzin Orgil

Introduction

On 16 July 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit handed down its non-published decision in United States v. Tenzin Orgil, No. 24-11796. Although styled as a routine “non-argument calendar” ruling, the opinion carves out a significant clarification: an otherwise valid appeal waiver remains enforceable even when the defendant has documented mental-health or cognitive impairments, so long as the Rule 11 record demonstrates present competency and knowing participation.

The case arose from Mr. Orgil’s guilty plea to three serious narcotics and money-laundering conspiracies. At sentencing he received 168 months—well below the life-term ceiling. On appeal he attacked Guideline rulings, but the Government moved to dismiss, invoking the plea agreement’s broad waiver. The Eleventh Circuit accepted the Government’s motion, relied on a line of prior waiver cases, and expressly addressed (and rejected) a “mental-health incompetency” argument that runs through many contemporary sentencing challenges in the opioid-crisis era.

Summary of the Judgment

The panel (Branch, Abudu & Anderson, JJ.) held:

• The Government met its burden under United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1993), because (i) the district court specifically questioned Mr. Orgil about his waiver during the Rule 11 colloquy, and (ii) the record made it “manifestly clear” he understood its significance.
• Mental-health evidence (autism spectrum disorder, PTSD, verbal comprehension weaknesses) did not undermine the district court’s explicit competency finding, nor the presumption of veracity attaching to Mr. Orgil’s sworn statements.
• The sentence imposed (168 months) did not trigger the waiver’s narrow carve-outs (illegal sentence, upward variance, Government appeal).
• Although the Eleventh Circuit has mooted a “miscarriage-of-justice” safety valve, it again declined to create or apply one on these facts.
• Accordingly, the appeal was DISMISSED.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The panel marshalled a familiar quartet of Eleventh Circuit authorities:

• Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343 (1993) – foundational test for waiver validity and scope.
• United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2020) – “touchstone” language, stressing clear conveyance of right forfeiture.
• United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006) – routine enforcement of voluntary waivers.
• United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2018) & Perkins v. United States, 73 F.4th 866 (11th Cir. 2023) – cognitive deficits do not automatically equate to incompetence.

Together, these cases created a high bar for defendants seeking to escape their waivers. Orgil tightens the bolts further by treating mental-health evidence as another Bushert factor rather than an independent escape hatch.

Legal Reasoning

1. Rule 11 Colloquy Sufficiency
   The district judge read the waiver aloud, obtained express acknowledgments, and confirmed Mr. Orgil’s education, sobriety, and understanding. Even a minor omission—failure to mention that a Government appeal would free the defendant—was ruled harmless because the overall colloquy still conveyed the waiver’s reach.
2. Competency Assessment
   The panel drew on federal competency standards: whether the defendant has a “present ability to consult with counsel” and a “rational and factual understanding of the proceedings.” Diagnostic labels (autism, PTSD) are not dispositive; contemporaneous behavior is. The judge, defense counsel, and defendant all indicated comprehension. Winthrop-Redin, 767 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2014), supplied the presumption that sworn answers are truthful.
3. Scope of Waiver versus Issues on Appeal
   Because the appeal contested Guidelines calculations (drug quantity, role adjustments etc.), it lay squarely inside the waiver’s broad language: “any sentence imposed … or the manner in which the sentence was imposed.”
4. Miscarriage-of-Justice Doctrine
   Prior panels have hinted at—but never applied—an equitable exception. In Orgil, the panel again “assumed without deciding” that such an exception might exist but found no “extraordinary circumstances” (e.g., illegal sentence, actual innocence, ineffective counsel) to justify it.

Impact

Orgil is unpublished, yet its practical influence is real:

• Mental-health defenses difficult at appellate stage. Defendants with ASD, PTSD, or cognitive deficits now face an even steeper climb to undo Rule 11 waivers.
• District judges receive validation. A colloquy that touches the statutory maxima, Guidelines range, and waiver carve-outs (even imperfectly) will likely survive scrutiny, provided the judge expressly probes comprehension.
• Unrealised miscarriage-of-justice exception. The Eleventh Circuit again signals that it may craft such an exception one day, but current defendants cannot bank on it.
• Plea-bargaining leverage. Prosecutors may point to Orgil when insisting on appeal waivers even for vulnerable or mentally-impaired defendants, knowing those waivers will almost certainly be upheld.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Appeal Waiver

A clause in a plea agreement where the defendant agrees not to challenge (most) aspects of the sentence in a higher court.

Rule 11 Colloquy

The courtroom dialogue between judge and defendant ensuring the plea is voluntary, informed, and factually supported.

Competency (Criminal Procedure)

Legal threshold that the defendant can (a) understand the proceedings and (b) consult with counsel. Mental illness alone ≠ incompetence.

Miscarriage-of-Justice Exception

A theorised, but not yet adopted, equitable ground that might allow an appeal despite a waiver when enforcing the waiver would be fundamentally unfair.

Conclusion

United States v. Tenzin Orgil reiterates the Eleventh Circuit’s unyielding approach to sentence-appeal waivers and contributes a fresh nuance: diagnosed mental or developmental disorders do not, standing alone, vitiate a waiver that the record otherwise shows was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and competently. By reinforcing stringent enforcement and declining (again) to recognise a miscarriage-of-justice back-door, the decision solidifies prosecutorial leverage in plea negotiations and sets a cautionary precedent for defense counsel handling clients with cognitive or mental-health challenges. Future litigants seeking to void waivers will need compelling, contemporaneous evidence of actual incompetence or erroneous sentencing that falls into the waiver’s narrow statutory or contractual carve-outs. Unless or until the Eleventh Circuit formalises its elusive miscarriage-of-justice exception, Orgil will stand as an emphatic reminder: “A deal is a deal—even for the neurologically diverse.”