Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40426/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40426-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Judith Lee Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40426

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUDITH LEE WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-63

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Judith Lee Williams appeals her guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to 

produce child pornography and production of child pornography. Williams 

argues that her guilty plea and the waiver of her appellate rights were not 

knowing and voluntary. The Government moves to summarily dismiss the 

appeal as barred by the appeal waiver or, in the alternative, moves for an 

extension of time 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

November 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40426 Document: 00513270031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
No. 15-40426

2

We reject the Government’s request for summary dismissal because the 

issue requires individualized consideration of the facts of Williams’s case. 

United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th 

Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Taylor, 631 F.2d 419, 420 n.1 (5th Cir. 

1980). Williams’s claim survives the waiver because this court will not enforce 

an appeal waiver unless the guilty plea was informed and voluntary. See 

United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261, 269 (5th Cir. 1997). Nevertheless, the 

signed plea agreement and rearraignment transcript show that Williams freely 

and knowingly pleaded guilty and waived her appellate rights. See United 

States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Guerra, 94 

F.3d 989, 995 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary dismissal is DENIED. 

The alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as 

unnecessary.

 Case: 15-40426 Document: 00513270031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2015