Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-50708/USCOURTS-ca5-13-50708-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Eikelboom
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50708

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

STEPHEN EIKELBOOM,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:10-CR-7-1

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Stephen Eikelboom challenges his 151-month sentence, imposed on 

resentencing for his conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii). He claims the court: committed 

plain error by failing to inquire, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 32, whether he had read the revised presentence investigation 

report and discussed it with his attorney; and erred by converting cash 

 

* 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 7, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 13-50708 Document: 00513106550 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015
No. 13-50708

2

currency into drug equivalents for purposes of computing his base-offense 

level, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(a)(5), (c)(4) (setting offender’s 

offense level at 32 for possession of at least 3,000, but less than 10,000, 

kilograms of marijuana equivalent). In response, the Government asserts, 

inter alia, that the appeal should be dismissed based on Eikelboom’s waiver of 

his right to appeal, contained in his plea agreement.

Pursuant to the terms of the waiver, Eikelboom waived the right to 

directly appeal his sentence on any ground, except the denial of his motions to 

suppress and the applicability of the career-offender provision. Therefore, the 

waiver provision encompasses his Rule 32 and Guideline § 2D1.1 challenges. 

Because Eikelboom does not challenge the voluntariness, and the Government 

seeks enforcement, of the waiver, the appeal is dismissed. See, e.g., United 

States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. 

Walters, 732 F.3d 489, 491 (5th Cir. 2013).

DISMISSED.

Case: 13-50708 Document: 00513106550 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015