Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20539/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20539-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cheryl Reed Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20539

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHERYL REED JOHNSON, also known as Shawnee Reed, also known as 

Cheryl Reed,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-47-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cheryl Reed Johnson was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail and 

wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the IRS, and falsely claiming a tax refund. 

The district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 151 months and a 

three-year term of supervised release. Now, Johnson argues that her plea is 

involuntary due to omissions in her Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 

 

* 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 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20539 Document: 00513670221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2016
No. 15-20539

2

colloquy. Specifically, she contends that the district court neglected to 

admonish her concerning her right to counsel at trial and on appeal, her right 

to testify at trial, the Government’s right to seek forfeiture, and the appellate 

waiver contained in her written plea agreement. Because these arguments 

show no obvious error, they fail. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 

135 (2009); United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Insofar as Johnson 

challenges her convictions by arguing that her plea was involuntary, her 

arguments are unavailing, and her convictions are AFFIRMED. 

The Government argues that Johnson’s challenge to her sentence is 

barred by her waiver of her appellate rights. Review of the record shows that 

Johnson’s waiver was knowing and voluntary and that the waiver applies to 

her argument that her sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Bond, 

414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). We thus decline to address this argument, 

and Johnson’s appeal is DISMISSED to the extent she challenges her sentence. 

See United States v. Walters, 732 F.3d 489, 491 (5th Cir. 2013). Finally, 

Johnson’s pro se motions to proceed pro se and to relieve appointed counsel are

DENIED. 

 Case: 15-20539 Document: 00513670221 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2016