Case ID: f-appx_213/html/0320-01.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. Rubaldino PECINA, also known as Ruby, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-41737
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 11, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Michael McGhee Scott, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rubaldino Pecina appeals the sentence imposed because of his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). In his plea agreement, Pecina waived the right to challenge his sentence, except in limited circumstances not applicable here. The Government seeks to enforce the waiver.

Pecina does not argue that his appeal waiver was unknowing or involuntary. Rather, he argues that the waiver should not be enforced on public policy grounds because he was not sentenced at the bottom of the Guideline imprisonment range, contrary to the Government’s recommendation under the plea agreement.

At his rearraignment, Pecina acknowledged the existence of the plea agreement and the fact that he waived the right to appeal his sentence. He also stated that he had read the plea agreement before signing it, reviewed it with counsel, and that he was entering into the plea voluntarily. Pecina acknowledged that the district court was not bound by the Govern-merit’s recommendation with regard to the sentence. Accordingly, Pecina’s appeal is barred by the waiver contained in the plea agreement. See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir.1994). We have not considered Pecina’s contention that the district court’s sentence was unreasonable.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.