Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50072/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50072-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Michael Enriquez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50072

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GEORGE MICHAEL ENRIQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-206

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Michael Enriquez appeals his guilty plea conviction for aiding 

and abetting the possession with intent to distribute actual methamphetamine 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He was 

sentenced to 108 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. 

He argues that the factual basis was insufficient to support his guilty plea and 

that the district court did not adequately explain the nature of the charge as 

 

* 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

September 28, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50072 Document: 00513209855 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2015
No. 15-50072

2

required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1). Because Enriquez 

raises these arguments for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. 

See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58–59 (2002). To show plain error, the 

appellant must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious, that affects his 

substantial rights, and that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of the judicial proceedings. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 

135 (2009); United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004).

The indictment charged and Enriquez pled guilty to the knowing and 

intentional aiding and abetting of possession with intent to distribute actual 

methamphetamine. At rearraignment, the court read the indictment and 

reviewed the charges specified in the indictment. Enriquez answered in the 

affirmative when asked whether he understood. The district court did not 

plainly err in determining that Enriquez understood the nature of the charge. 

See Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83; see also United States v. CuevasAndrade, 232 F.3d 440, 444 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Dayton, 604 F.2d 

931, 942–43 (5th Cir. 1979).

The government was required to prove that Enriquez knowingly and 

intentionally aided and abetted possession of a controlled substance with the 

intent to distribute. See United States v. Pando Franco, 503 F.3d 389, 394 (5th 

Cir. 2007); United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 599 n.1 (5th Cir. 

2005). Enriquez admitted in the factual basis that he delivered the 

methamphetamine to the cooperating source, but he challenges whether the 

factual basis established that he did this knowing that he was delivering a

controlled substance. The record as a whole, including the indictment, the plea 

agreement, the plea colloquy, and the presentence report, demonstrates that 

Enriquez knowingly aided and abetted the possession of the 

methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. The district court did not 

 Case: 15-50072 Document: 00513209855 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2015
No. 15-50072

3

plainly err in determining that there was a factual basis for the plea. See

United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 313, 317 (5th Cir. 2010).

Enriquez argues that his waiver of appeal should not be enforced because 

the government breached the plea agreement by failing to make a motion 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) for the third point for acceptance of 

responsibility. Enriquez did receive the three-level reduction; there was no 

breach.

Enriquez argues that the district court erred in sentencing him for actual 

methamphetamine when he did not admit to possessing actual 

methamphetamine. The government asserts that Enriquez waived his right 

to appeal his sentence. Aside from his contention that the government 

breached the plea agreement, Enriquez does not challenge the government’s 

assertion of the waiver of appeal. Because Enriquez makes no other argument 

challenging the enforceability of the appeal waiver, the waiver is enforced, and 

his appeal of the sentence is dismissed. See United States v. Hildenbrand, 527

F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2008).

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; APPEAL OF SENTENCE DISMISSED.

 Case: 15-50072 Document: 00513209855 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/28/2015