Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60276/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60276-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Baxter
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60276

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN BAXTER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:17-CR-23-2

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Baxter appeals his below-guidelines sentence after pleading guilty, 

pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiring to possess with the intent 

to distribute methamphetamine. Baxter challenges his sentence as being 

procedurally unreasonable on the ground that the district court erred in 

calculating the applicable guidelines sentencing range. Seeking to enforce 

* 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

March 24, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60276 Document: 00515356692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2020
No. 19-60276

2

Baxter’s appeal waiver, the Government moves to dismiss the appeal and 

alternatively moves for summary affirmance.

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

States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Based on our review of the 

record, Baxter knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea agreement, 

including the appeal waiver, which is enforceable and bars his appeal. See id.; 

United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 739 (5th Cir. 2014). Baxter’s argument 

that his appeal waiver was unknowing because he agreed to it without 

knowledge of his guidelines sentencing range is unavailing. See United States 

v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992). We GRANT the 

Government’s motion to dismiss, and we DENY its alternative motion for 

summary affirmance as unnecessary.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Case: 19-60276 Document: 00515356692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2020