Case ID: f-appx_177/html/0395-01.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. Heriberto MARTINEZ BRAVO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40282.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided April 11, 2006.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Octavio Salinas, II, Law Office of Octavio Salinas, Laredo, TX, for Defendants Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Heriberto Martinez Bravo appeals from the sentence imposed for his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. On appeal, he argues that (1) the district court erred by applying the mandatory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines and by failing to state the reasons for the imposed sentence and (2) the district court erred by failing to uphold his objection regarding the over representation of his criminal history. The Government asserts that Martinez Bravo’s appeal is barred by the appeal-waiver provision contained in his plea agreement.

Martinez Bravo argues that his appeal-waiver provision is invalid because his plea agreement was accepted before issuance of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). This court has recently rejected that precise argument. United States v. Burns, 433 F.3d 442, 450-51 (5th Cir.2005). Martinez Bravo does not challenge the validity of his appeal-waiver provision on any other ground. Accordingly, Martinez Bravo’s challenges to his sentence are barred by the appeal-waiver provision in his plea agreement. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir.1992).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.