Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0151-01.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. David Lee ANDERSON, also known as David Anderson, also known as David Zoba, also known as David L. Anderson, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-50719 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 06/27/2016
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Margaret Mary Embry,' Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    David Lee Anderson, Pro Se
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

David Lee Anderson appeals the 293-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. Anderson pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement wherein he waived the right to appeal his, conviction and sentence on any ground, reserving only a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or prose-cutorial misconduct of constitutional dimension.

Although Anderson argues that his appeal waiver is unenforceable, our review of the record shows that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, as he knew that he had the right to appeal and that he was giving up that right by entering into the plea agreement. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, the waiver, which has been invoked by the Government in this appeal, precludes consideration of Anderson’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. See United States v. Walters, 732 F.3d 489, 491 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.