
    UNITED STATES of America v. Keith STEPHENS, Appellant.
    No. 06-4145.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Nov. 21, 2008.
    Opinion Filed: Dec. 17, 2008.
    George S. Leone, Esq., John F. Romano, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for United States of America.
    Annette Verdesco, Esq., Picillo, Caruso, Pope, Edell & Picini, Fairfield, NJ, for Appellant.
    Before: BARRY and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI , Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION

RESTANI, Judge.

We write for the parties only.

Appellant Keith Stephens pled guilty to a one-count information charging conspiracy to defraud with access devices under 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2). Stephens was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 43 months, which is within the Guidelines range for an offense level of 21. In his plea agreement, Stephens agreed to waive his right to appeal such a sentence.

Stephens argues that the waiver of the right to appeal should be invalidated, as failure to grant him a downward departure results in a miscarriage of justice due to his exceptional circumstances. The miscarriage of justice exception is to be applied sparingly after consideration of the clarity, gravity, and character of the-error, the error’s impact on the parties, and the extent of the defendant’s acquiescence. United States v. Wilson, 429 F.3d 455, 458 (3d Cir.2005) (citation omitted). There is nothing extraordinary or exceptional about Stephens’s claims of extenuating circumstances as to his youth, first felony offense, cooperation, lack of education, mental and physical state, community ties, and family responsibilities. In any case, the sentencing court heard and considered all such claims, and it is unlikely any error was committed. Thus, this is not an appropriate case for invalidating a waiver of appeal.

Accordingly, appellant’s appeal will be dismissed. 
      
      . This matter did not proceed on the basis of the government's Motion for Summary Action, as such motion was filed some months after the government first entered a notice of appearance. By that time, various activities in the case had taken place, including the filing of appellant’s brief. This case is not a model for efficiently obtaining a dismissal of appeal based on a waiver. Accordingly, we reject the government’s request for a precedential opinion setting forth what that model should be.
     