Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 14-2254 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee, 

v. 

LUIS GOMEZ-AVILA, 

Defendant, Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

[Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez, U.S. District Judge] 

Before 

Kayatta, Stahl, and Barron, 

Circuit Judges. 

 Luis Rafael Rivera and Luis Rafael Rivera Law Offices on brief 

for appellant. 

 Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson 

Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate 

Division, and Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney, 

on brief for appellee. 

August 10, 2016 
- 2 - 

PER CURIAM. Luis Gomez-Avila was indicted in connection 

with a large-scale drug distribution ring operating in Carolina, 

Puerto Rico. Ultimately, Gomez-Avila pled guilty to charges that 

he conspired to possess and distribute large quantities of 

narcotics (Count 1 of the indictment) and that he used a firearm 

while doing so (Count 6 of the indictment). 

The terms of Gomez-Avila's guilty plea were memorialized 

in a plea agreement with the government which provided, in relevant 

part, that Gomez-Avila could seek a sentence of between 121 and 

151 months on Count 1, and that the parties would jointly recommend 

a sentence of sixty months on Count 6 (to run consecutive to the 

sentence imposed in Count 1). In the plea agreement, Gomez-Avila 

waived the right to appeal his judgment and sentence, provided 

that the district judge sentenced him in accordance with these 

recommendations. And, the district judge did just that, sentencing 

Gomez-Avila to 121 months on Count 1 and a consecutive sixty months 

on Count 6. 

As his brief candidly concedes, Gomez-Avila's appeal is 

foreclosed by the appellate waiver provision contained in the plea 

agreement. Gomez-Avila does not so much as suggest either that 

the waiver does not apply, see United States v. Okoye, 731 F.3d 

46, 49 (1st Cir. 2013) (describing the "threshold inquiry" of 

whether the appeal "falls within the scope of the waiver-of-appeal 

provision"), or that the waiver is somehow unenforceable, see 
- 3 - 

United States v. Gil-Quezada, 445 F.3d 33, 36 (1st Cir. 2006) 

(noting that appellate waivers must be entered into "knowingly and 

voluntarily" and may not be enforced if doing so would "work a 

miscarriage of justice"). Thus, any such argument is waived. See 

United States v. Arroyo-Blas, 783 F.3d 361, 367 (1st Cir. 2015). 

The appellate waiver must be enforced and the appeal dismissed.1

 1 Gomez-Avila's claim would fare no better even were we to 

consider its merits. For one, Gomez-Avila's argument that the 

district court's hands were unconstitutionally "tied" by the 

applicable mandatory minimum sentences is one that has been 

consistently rejected. See United States v. Gonzalez-Ramirez, 561 

F.3d 22, 30 (1st Cir. 2009) ("[I]t is beyond cavil that Congress 

has the power to set statutory minimum and maximum sentences to 

which courts must adhere." (citing Chapman v. United States, 500 

U.S. 453, 467 (1991))). Nor is there merit to Gomez-Avila's claim 

(raised for the first time on appeal) that the district court erred 

in finding a sufficient factual basis to support his conviction 

for use of a firearm in furtherance of the conspiracy. The record 

soundly supported this conclusion. For example, at Gomez-Avila's 

change of plea hearing, he affirmed on the record that the 

government's allegation that he "use[d] and carr[ied] firearms 

during and in relation to the drug trafficking activities" was 

true and correct.