Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10077/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10077-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Armendariz Sandoval
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10077

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO ARMENDARIZ SANDOVAL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-7-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Armendariz Sandoval (Armendariz) appeals the 45-month term 

of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found 

unlawfully present in the United States following deportation. He argues that 

the waiver-of-appeal provision in his sentencing agreement with the 

Government is not enforceable because the Government refused to move for a 

third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility unless Armendariz 

 

* 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 29, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10077 Document: 00513133984 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2015
No. 14-10077

2

waived his right to appeal. The Government seeks to enforce the waiver 

provision. We pretermit a determination of the enforceability of the waiver 

provision. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006).

For the first time on appeal, Armendariz contends that the district court 

committed reversible plain error by imposing the 16-level enhancement under 

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on his prior Oklahoma felony conviction for 

possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He asserts that the statute 

encompasses an offense involving sharing or delivering the drugs with or 

without remuneration, which does not constitute a “drug trafficking offense” 

within the meaning of the Guideline.

As Armendariz concedes, this argument is foreclosed by our recent 

holding in United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 

2015). However, he wishes to preserve the argument for further possible 

review. Accordingly, Almendariz has shown no clear or obvious error with 

regard to his sentence. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-10077 Document: 00513133984 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2015