Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40564/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40564-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Camacho
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40564

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN CAMACHO, also known as Martin Salinas-Gabina, also known as 

Jose Camacho-Sanchez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-561

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Camacho appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for 

illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Camacho

argues that his guilty plea, which included an appeal waiver, was unknowing 

and involuntary. Specifically, he asserts that the district court sentenced him 

under § 1326(b)(2) for a prior aggravated felony conviction, but admonished 

* 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

April 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40564 Document: 00513018037 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2015
No. 14-40564

him under § 1326(b)(1), thus misleading him to believe that he would be 

sentenced based only on a prior nonaggravated felony conviction.

Camacho originally raised three issues on appeal, but has moved to 

abandon two of his issues, which he states lack merit following correction of 

the transcript of the rearraignment hearing.

The Government moves to dismiss on the basis that Camacho waived his 

right to appeal. A waiver does not operate to bar a claim that a waiver or the 

plea agreement in which it is set forth was unknowing or involuntary. See 

United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012).

Because Camacho did not raise the voluntariness of his plea in the 

district court, we review only for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S.

55, 59 (2002). The record reflects that the district court sentenced Camacho

under § 1326(b)(1). Camacho’s indictment, plea agreement, presentence 

report, and judgment all cite § 1326(b)(1). At rearraignment, therefore, the

district court appropriately advised Camacho of his maximum sentence under 

§ 1326(b)(1). Thus, Camacho’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See

FED. R. CRIM P. 11(b)(1)(H); United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 

2002).

Camacho’s motion to abandon two appellate issues is GRANTED. The 

Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED. The Government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time in which to file its appellee’s brief 

is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-40564 Document: 00513018037 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2015