Case ID: f-appx_132/html/0549-01.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. Eudelio RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-51113.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided May 31, 2005.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ricardo Ramos, The Ramos Law Firm, Eagle Pass, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Eudelio Rodriguez appeals from his sentence for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Rodriguez asserts that his waiver of appeal is invalid because the Government violated the plea agreement. This court reviews de novo whether a waiver of appeal bars an appeal. United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir.2002).

Rodriguez contends that the Government violated its agreement by supporting the probation officer’s recommendation to deny him credit for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3El.l(a). This lacks merit because the record shows that the Government promised not to oppose the adjustment only if the probation officer recommended it in the presentence report. At Rodriguez’s sentencing hearing, this was made clear. Thus Rodriguez’s reliance on United States v. Keresztury, 293 F.3d 750, 755-57 (5th Cir.2002), is misplaced.

The record shows that Rodriguez knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261, 269 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, Rodriguez’s waiver of appeal is enforceable and bars the present appeal.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.