Case ID: f-appx_115/html/0213-01.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. Armando POPOCA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-20095.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
    Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lourdes Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Armando Popoca appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to transport and harbor unlawful aliens for purposes of commercial advantage and private gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(v)(I) and (II). He argues that his sentence should be vacated in view of Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). As part of his plea agreement, Popoca waived the right to appeal his sentence “except ... a sentence imposed above the statutory maximum and an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines not requested by the United States.” At the rearraignment hearing, the district court expressly advised Popoca of the waiver provision, and Popoca stated that he understood and did not express confusion or ask any questions concerning the waiver provision. Therefore, Popoca knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence, and the waiver is valid and enforceable. See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir.1999). Even if Popoca’s Blakely claim is not precluded by the waiver provision, the issue is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir.2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004)(No. 04-5263).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.