The Ninth Circuit dismissed Ms. Stoltz' criminal appeal due to an appellate waiver in the plea agreement. Ms. Stoltz argues that the appellate waiver in her case was unknowing and involuntary (and therefore unenforceable) because though one may knowingly and voluntarily waive an unknown future sentence authorized by law, one can not waive the constitutionally guaranteed right for the district court to follow the law when it applies the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The sentencing process must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause.

The question presented is:

Is an appellate waiver knowing and voluntary when the waiver's scope includes a sentence contrary to law and unauthorized by the United States Sentencing Guidelines when a criminal defendant enjoys a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in being sentenced according to law?

Is an appellate waiver knowing and voluntary when the waiver's scope includes a sentence contrary to law and unauthorized by the United States Sentencing Guidelines when a criminal defendant enjoys a liberty interest in being sentenced according to law?