Case ID: f-appx_591/html/0301-01.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. Brandon J. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-31197
    No. 13-31197.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 4, 2015.
    Theodore R. Carter, III, Kevin G. Boit-mann, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorneys U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Jordan Mark Siverd, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Brandon J. Thomas appeals the 90-month term of imprisonment imposed on resentencing for his conviction for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. Thomas argues that the district court erroneously based the upward variance on his prior involvement in dog fighting and thus his sentence is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).

In response to Thomas’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, the Government argues, among other things, that this court should dismiss Thomas’s appeal based upon the plea agreement’s appeal waiver. Pursuant to the terms of the waiver, Thomas waived the right to directly appeal his sentence' on any ground, reserving only the right to challenge any sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum; this waiver includes the instant substantive reasonableness challenge. Because the appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary and because the Government seeks the enforcement of the appeal waiver, the appeal is dismissed. See United States v. Walters, 732 zF.3d 489, 491 (5th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1349, 188 L.Ed.2d 352 (2014).

APPEAL 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.