Case ID: f-appx_135/html/0703-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles CUVILLIER, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-30785.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 21, 2005.
    William P. Gibbens, Nils Robert Kessler, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Dwight M. Doskey, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Charles Cuvillier, Sr., appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and more than five kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride. Cuvillier executed a plea agreement waiving certain of his appellate rights; however, he reserved the right to appeal “any punishment imposed in excess of the statutory maximum.” Cuvillier’s sentence is based solely on facts to which he stipulated in connection with his guilty plea.

Nevertheless, Cuvillier argues that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowable under United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights under the Sixth Amendment when he stipulated to the facts supporting his guilty plea. Thus, he contends that the waiver provision in his plea agreement does not bar his appeal. He further argues that he must be resentenced because the district court’s belief that the sentencing guidelines were mandatory prevented the court from considering potential mitigating evidence.

Our review of the record shows that Cuvillier’s waiver of his appellate rights was knowing and voluntary. This appeal is barred by the “plain language” of the waiver because Cuvillier’s 180-month term of imprisonment, which is based solely on his own admissions, does not exceed the statutory maximum term of life imprisonment that could have been imposed for the offense. United States v. McKinney, No. 04-41223, 406 F.3d 744, 2005 WL 887153 at *2 (5th Cir. April 15, 2005); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A); see Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2537, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.,5 the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.