Whether defendant was adequately informed of his rights at the plea hearing under FedRCrimP 11(b); Alleged violation of Rule 11(b)(1)(N); Allowing the prosecutor to summarize the appeal waiver in the plea agreement; Omission of an explanation of the waiver’s exceptions; Whether the district court should have required the prosecutor to explain the waiver; Sentencing-enhancement arguments barred by the appeal waiver

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that defendant-Thomas did not show plain error as to his claims that Rule 11 was violated during his plea hearing. The district court sentenced Thomas to 300 months after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute meth and cocaine. He argued that during the plea hearing, the district court should have confirmed his “understanding of each particular right as [it] described them, rather than (as the court did) describing all the relevant rights and then asking Thomas whether he understood them.” But the court held that Rule 11(b)’s terms do “not require the seriatim approach” he called for and neither does the court’s caselaw. He also argued that the district court erred under Rule 11(b)(1)(N) by having the prosecutor fully explain the appeal waiver, contending “that the prosecutor violated the rule because he omitted an explanation of the waiver’s exceptions, and thus failed to explain the waiver ‘adequately and correctly.’” However, the court noted it has held that “the rule is not violated when the record shows a defendant was ‘informed of and understood his rights.’” And it found that Thomas did not claim “that he was not informed of, or did not understand, the appeal waiver. Moreover, ample evidence shows that he did understand it.” He acknowledged that he was provided with the agreement weeks before the hearing and had discussed it with his counsel. The prosecutor’s failure to specifically “explain the exceptions to the appeal waiver” and instead just referring to them did not constitute plain error where “Thomas confirmed that he understood the plea agreement in its entirety after the prosecutor summarized the waiver.” The court also rejected his claim that the district court should have required the prosecutor to explain the waiver where he neither argued nor showed “that he did not understand the plea agreement.” Lastly, the court held that his sentencing-enhancements arguments were barred by the plea waiver.