Jamal Saadallah BERRO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.Case below, 348 Fed.Appx. 98. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Given that the district court specifically considered whether the Bureau of Prisons could accommodate Hohn's impairments and was presented with scant evidence regarding home confinement, the district court did not err, let alone plainly err, in its application of USSG § 5H1.4. See United States v. Berro, 348 F. App'x 98, 101 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1113 (2010). Hohn also contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

Rather, the inquiry is focused on whether the defendant understood the terms as the prosecutor or the court explained them. See, e.g., United States v. Berro, 348 Fed. Appx. 98, 102 (6th Cir. 2009) (focusing on whether the prosecutor's explanation of the appeal waiver was clear and whether the district court sufficiently followed up). It was therefore not reversible error, by itself, for the district court to have the prosecutor read Davis his mandatory minimum sentence.

This court has not held, however, that the failure to file a motion to dismiss would result in forfeiture of the right to rely on an otherwise valid waiver of appeal. Although defendant relies on our decision in United States v. Berro, 348 Fed.Appx. 98 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1113, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010), that case is not precisely on point. There, we did not find forfeiture; rather, we decided to address the merits since the appellate waiver issue was not raised by the government or briefed by the parties.

Defendant does not allege that his guilty plea included a waiver that was not "informed and voluntary" and has made no attempt in the instant motion to challenge his guilty Plea. Thus, Defendant's § 2255 raises claims "that simply relate to issues a defendant has validly agreed not to appeal or attack collaterally, from those that go to the very validity of a guilty plea." Acosta, 480 F.3d at 422; see also United States v. Berro, 348 F. App'x 98, 102-03 (6th Cir. 2009) (stating that where the appellate waiver was valid, the defendant waived his ability to challenge his sentence, which fell within the time line specified in the agreement). Defendant waived his right to appeal and therefore Defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to appeal on his behalf.