Case ID: f-appx_547/html/0533-01.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. Martin Amado MEDELLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-51100
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 18, 2013.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Reginald Van Wade, Esq., Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Martin Amado Medellin pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. The district court sentenced Medellin to 84 months in prison. On appeal, Medellin argues that in determining his sentence, the district court erred by failing to give him credit for accepting responsibility for his offense.

The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver-of-appeal provision in the plea agreement. In his written plea agreement, Medellin agreed to waive his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, although he reserved his right to appeal a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum and the right to raise claims based on prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel. The issue raised by Medellin does not fall within the listed exceptions to the appeal waiver. Nothing in the record indicates that his waiver of appeal was not knowing and voluntary. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746-7 (5th Cir.2005). Medellin does not oppose the Government’s argument that his appeal is barred by the waiver of appeal provision.

Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. See United States v. Holy Land Found, for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir.2006). The Government’s alternative motion to extend the time to file its brief is DENIED.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.