IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50874

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT TIMOTHY BLAKE, also known as Robert Blake, also known as 

Rodger T. Blake,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-66-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Timothy Blake pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to 

distribution of child pornography and possession of child pornography. The 

plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, in which he waived the right to 

appeal his sentence on any ground but reserved the right to challenge his 

sentence based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial 

 

* 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 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50874 Document: 00514163462 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2017
No. 16-50874

2

misconduct. He contends that the Government breached the plea agreement 

when it made the following statements at the sentencing hearing: Blake took 

photographs of neighborhood children on a camera found during the execution 

of a search warrant of his residence; he sexually abused his daughter; and he 

fled from Rhode Island to evade an investigation of his alleged possession of 

child pornography.

Because Blake did not object to a breach in the district court, review is 

limited to plain error. See United States v. Hebron, 684 F.3d 554, 557-58 (5th 

Cir. 2012). To show plain error, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or 

obvious and that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the 

discretion to correct the error but only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). Blake has not shown that the Government’s

statements constituted a clear and obvious breach of the plea agreement. See 

id; Hebron, 684 F.3d at 557-58; United States v. Casillas, 853 F.3d 215, 218

(5th Cir. 2017), petition for cert. filed (June 27, 2017) (No. 17-5081); United 

States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 413-14 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Because no breach of the plea agreement invalidated the appeal waiver, 

we will examine whether the waiver is otherwise knowing and voluntary. See 

United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). Blake did not 

specifically object to the district court’s compliance Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(b)(1)(N) and, therefore, review is limited to plain error. See

United States v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397, 411-12 (5th Cir. 2011).

At rearraignment, the district court advised Blake that he had waived 

his right to appeal his sentence, except for claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel and prosecutorial misconduct; Blake stated that he understood and did 

 Case: 16-50874 Document: 00514163462 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2017
No. 16-50874

3

not express any confusion or ask any questions concerning the appeal waiver. 

Blake knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and the appeal 

waiver is valid and enforceable. See United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 781 

(5th Cir. 2011). Therefore, Blake’s remaining claims challenging the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence and the adversarial nature of the 

sentencing hearing are barred by the appeal waiver. See id.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 Case: 16-50874 Document: 00514163462 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/20/2017