Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41348/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41348-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Artemio Blanco-Gomez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41348

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTEMIO BLANCO-GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-30-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Artemio Blanco-Gomez challenges his statutory maximum 120-month 

sentence for illegal reentry. He argues that the district court incorrectly 

applied U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Relying on the appellate waiver in the plea 

agreement, the Government seeks dismissal of the appeal, summary 

affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time in which to file a brief.

 

* 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

July 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41348 Document: 00513117902 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-41348

2

We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v. 

Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). The waiver provision broadly 

waived Blanco-Gomez’s right to appeal his sentence. He reserved the right to 

appeal only a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum or to bring a claim 

of ineffective assistance of counsel that affected the validity of the plea or the 

waiver. The record of his rearraignment shows that the waiver was knowing 

and voluntary, as Blanco-Gomez knew he had the right to appeal and that he 

was giving up that right in the plea agreement. See United States v. Portillo, 

18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the plain language of the waiver 

provision applies to Blanco-Gomez’s challenge to his sentence, we will enforce 

the waiver and DISMISS the appeal. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 

544, 546 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, 

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

an extension of time is also DENIED.

 Case: 14-41348 Document: 00513117902 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2015