Did the Fourth Circuit err in upholding the Petitioner's appeal waiver to preclude his claim that the trial court violated the notice provisions of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Circumstances. Petitioner Brock Brian Beeman (“Beeman”) entered a guilty plea to one count of making interstate threats with intent to injure, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). His plea agreement with the government contained an appeal waiver. Eight days prior to the sentencing hearing, the probation officer submitted a revised presentence report that contained a new two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice. On the day before sentencing, the government, for the first time, submitted its restitution request. Mr. Beeman, who was incarcerated and proceeding pro se, first saw both items on the morning of sentencing and objected to them. Nonetheless, the court went forward with the sentencing hearing and imposed the statutory maximum of 60 months’ incarceration. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to consider whether the district court violated the sentencing notice provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, ruling that the issue was waived pursuant to the appeal waiver in Mr. Beeman’s plea agreement. There is a split in the Circuit Courts as to whether an appeal waiver precludes appellate consideration of assignments of error asserting violations of the notice provisions of Rule 32. Question for Review. Did the Fourth Circuit err in upholding the Petitioner’s appeal waiver to preclude his claim that the trial court violated the notice provisions of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? i