Does a sentence-appeal waiver that purportedly precludes a challenge to the sufficiency of enhancement evidence and the district court's interpretation and application of the sentencing Guidelines frustrate the remedy fashioned by this Court in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), thereby rendering the waiver unconstitutional or void as against public policy?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Does a sentence-appeal waiver that purportedly precludes a challenge to the sufficiency of enhancement evidence and the district court’s interpretation and application of the sentencing Guidelines frustrate the remedy fashioned by this Court in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), thereby rendering the waiver unconstitutional or void as against public policy? II. Does a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal the sufficiency of evidence and Guidelines interpretation and application if the trial court does not specifically inform the defendant, as part of its Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N) disclosures, that the defendant is waiving his right to make such a challenge, though the plea agreement does not expressly waive the defendant’s right to have his sentenced determined by constitutionally sufficient proof and in accordance with a correct Guidelines range determination? Il. Did the plea agreement vest Petitioner with a contractual right to have his sentence determined with reference to a proper application of the Guidelines and upon sufficient proof, creating a condition precedent to enforceability of the sentence appeal waiver, the applicability of which requires appellate review of the court’s guidelines application? ii INTERESTED PARTIES There are no