Per Curiam
District court sentenced Coston to 27 months in prison after he pleaded guilty, under agreement, to fraudulently using access devices to obtain items valued at $1,000 or more in violation of 18 USC §1029(a)(2) and (c)(1)(A)(i). Coston waived appeal or collateral attack of any sentence of 120 months or less. Second Circuit dismissed Coston’s appeal, rejecting his claim that his waiver was either void or unenforceable and that, accordingly, he could challenge sentence for procedural error. The circuit found no basis in Coston’s assertion that the plea agreement’s waiver provision created an unacceptable risk of abuse in exchange for minimal consideration, and that the court’s sentencing above the Guidelines range contemplated by the plea agreement’s factual stipulations showed the waiver’s “fundamental” unfairness. In addition to noting that the parties did not dispute that Coston knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, the circuit found no merit in Coston’s claim that he received no consideration for their waiver. The government stipulated—and stood behind such stipulation in its sentencing memorandum—to a much lower loss amount than that actually involved in the offense for which Coston was convicted.
