Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50451/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50451-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonardo Alonso Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50451

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEONARDO ALONSO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-731-2

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Leonardo Alonso Rodriguez pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more 

of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Rodriguez to 180 months 

of imprisonment and six years of supervised release. Rodriguez appeals his 

sentence, arguing that the district court erred by imposing a three-level 

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) based on his role as a manager 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50451 Document: 00513490777 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
No. 15-50451

2

or supervisor in the offense. However, Rodriguez’s plea agreement contains an 

appeal waiver provision that precludes his challenge to the district court’s 

sentence. 

In an attempt to avoid the enforcement of the appeal waiver, Rodriguez 

argues that his plea agreement is invalid because it is procedurally and

substantively unconscionable. He asserts that the plea agreement is 

procedurally unconscionable because the parties had unequal bargaining 

power. He further asserts that the agreement is substantively unconscionable 

because it is “grossly one sided,” as he maintains that he gave up numerous 

important rights and received “very little, if anything” in return. 

Because Rodriguez did not challenge the validity of the plea agreement 

in the district court and did not attempt to withdraw his plea on grounds that 

the plea agreement was unconscionable, we apply plain error review to his 

claims. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002). Our review of 

the plea agreement reveals no plain error with respect to Rodriguez’s 

unconscionability arguments. Rodriguez was free to reject the agreement and 

to either go to trial or plead guilty without a plea agreement, and the plea 

agreement provided Rodriguez with significant benefits. 

The appeal waiver in the plea agreement bars Rodriguez’s challenge to 

the district court’s sentence. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

 Case: 15-50451 Document: 00513490777 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2016