United States v. Coogan Preston

── United States v. Coogan Preston ── Case No.: 25-11909 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 25, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11909 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11909 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus COOGAN PRESTON, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 5:24-cr-00416-LCB-HNJ-1 ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Coogan Preston appeals his total prison sentence of 64 months after pleading guilty to conspiring to commit bribery of a USCA11 Case: 25-11909 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11909 public official, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 201(b)(1), and receiving gra- tuities in exchange for official action—directing federal subcon- tracts—as a public official, see id. § 201(c)(1)(B). He argues that the district court erred by calculating his guideline range and by choos- ing to run the sentences on each count consecutively, resulting in a sentence that, in his view, exceeded the statutory maximum and failed to reflect the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The government moves to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver in Preston’s plea agreement. Preston responds that the exceptions to the waiver permit this appeal. After careful review, we grant the government’s motion. I. Preston waived his right to indictment and pled guilty to a two-count information under a written plea agreement. The agreement noted that the receipt-of-gratuity and conspiracy counts were subject to maximum prison terms of two years and five years, respectively. The government agreed to request an acceptance-of- responsibility reduction and to recommend a sentence at the low end of the advisory guideline range, among other promises. Preston’s plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal, subject to limited exceptions. Preston agreed to “waive and give up my right to appeal my conviction and/or sentence in this case.” He “reserve[d] the right to contest in an appeal” the follow- ing: (1) “Any sentence imposed in excess of the applicable statutory maximum sentence(s)”; (2) “Any sentence imposed in excess of the USCA11 Case: 25-11909 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 3 of 6 25-11909 Opinion of the Court 3 Guidelines range determined by the Court at the time sentence is imposed”; and (3) “Ineffective assistance of counsel.” During the plea colloquy, the district court specifically ques- tioned Preston about the appeal waiver. The court stated that Pres- ton would give up his right to challenge his sentence except on the following grounds: “Any punishment in excess of the statutory maximum, any punishment constituting an upward departure of the guideline range, and any claim of ineffective assistance of coun- sel.” Preston indicated he understood these exceptions and that, by pleading guilty, he was voluntarily