Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50581/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50581-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enrique Tavarez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50159

c/w No. 19-50581

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

v.

ENRIQUE TAVAREZ,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-82-6

Before OWEN, Chief Judge, and SOUTHWICK and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Tavarez challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month, 

within-guidelines sentence for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, 

and conspiring to distribute, five kilograms or more of cocaine. Tavarez 

contends that his plea agreement was unknowing, involuntary, and void such 

that his appellate waiver is unenforceable because he did not receive any 

 

* 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

January 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50581 Document: 00515267366 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2020
No. 19-50159

c/w No. 19-50581

2

consideration for his plea beyond valueless promises from the Government. As 

Tavarez did not challenge his plea agreement or move to withdraw his guilty 

plea on this basis in the district court, we review for plain error. See Puckett 

v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 133-35 (2009); United States v. Cothran, 302 

F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 2002).

Although we have applied general principles of contract law to the 

interpretation of plea agreements, United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 

(5th Cir. 2006), we have never expressly held that valid plea agreements 

require consideration, see, e.g., United States v. Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231, 

1239-40 (5th Cir. 1991). We ordinarily do not find plain error when we have 

not previously addressed an issue. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671 

(5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, Tavarez does not attempt to satisfy the plain error 

standard. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

Because the plea agreement and appeal waiver are valid, and because 

Tavarez’s challenge to the denial of a U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 adjustment is barred by 

the terms of the waiver, we do not consider his § 5C1.2 argument. See United 

States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746-47 (5th Cir. 2005). The judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-50581 Document: 00515267366 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2020