Case ID: f-appx_231/html/0381-01.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. Byron Keith DARBONNE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-40551
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 19, 2007.
    Jennifer Bess Lowery, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Douglas Milton Barlow, Barlow Law Firm, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Byron Keith Darbonne pleaded guilty to two counts of using a communication facility to facilitate the commission of a felony. Darbonne expressly waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Darbonne, however, reserved the right to appeal if the district court imposed a sentence that was not in accordance with the terms of the agreement or if ineffective assistance of counsel affected the validity of the waiver of appeal. The district court sentenced Darbonne to 48 months of imprisonment on each count with the terms to be served consecutively, for a total of 96 months in prison.

Darbonne argues that his sentence was unreasonable following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The Government argues that the waiver clause is valid and should be enforced. The record reflects that Darbonne knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir.1992). Consideration of Darbonne’s Booker-related claim is barred by the plain language of the waiver. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we do not consider the merits of Darbonne’s sentencing challenge, and the judgment of the district court is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.