Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60345/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60345-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dijon Jamese Seales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60345

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DIJON JAMESE SEALES, also known as DJ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:18-CR-49-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dijon Jamese Seales appeals the 285-month sentence imposed following 

his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug 

trafficking crime. He raises arguments related to the district court’s 

calculation of his guidelines range. The Government moves to dismiss the 

* 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

February 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60345 Document: 00515325358 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60345

2

appeal or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the appeal waiver 

in Seales’s plea agreement.

We review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. United 

States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). The record reflects that 

Seales’s appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. 

McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). In addition, the language of the 

appeal waiver applies to Seales’s appellate arguments. See United States v. 

Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Counsel for Seales is cautioned that pursuing an appeal contrary to a 

valid waiver and without responding to the Government’s invocation of the 

waiver is a needless waste of judicial resources that could result in sanctions.

See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is 

GRANTED, and its alternative motion for summary affirmance is DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

Case: 19-60345 Document: 00515325358 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2020