Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS KERSEY

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-05 Docket: 2:21-cr-00037-LGW-BWC-1 The eleventh-circuit granted the government’s motion to dismiss Michael Kersey’s appeal from a 1,200-month sentence for child exploitation offenses. The court held that the appeal waiver contained in Kersey’s plea agreement was enforceable and applicable, barring his claim of substantive unreasonableness based on an alleged sentencing disparity with a co-defendant. The court applied the standard of review de novo to determine the validity of the appeal waiver, enforcing waivers made knowingly and voluntarily unless doing so would result in a miscarriage of justice. The court rejected Kersey’s argument that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the waiver unenforceable, noting that while his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult him about filing an out-of-time appeal, that specific failure did not render the earlier-entered plea agreement waiver itself the product of ineffective assistance. Furthermore, the court found that Kersey’s claim of unwarranted disparity did not meet the “high bar” required to establish a miscarriage of justice, which necessitates egregious error that brings the judicial system into disrepute. The practical consequence is that the appeal is dismissed, leaving the district court’s judgment and sentence in place without further appellate review on the merits. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.