IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40247

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JIMENA FAVIOLA SALAZAR-ALANIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-178-6

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimena Faviola Salazar-Alanis pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess 

with intent to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. Her plea 

agreement provided that she waived her right to appeal her conviction or 

sentence. She reserved the rights only to challenge a sentence that exceeded 

the statutory maximum sentence and to assert ineffectiveness of counsel in a 

collateral proceeding. However, she contends that her plea agreement and 

 

* 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

January 14, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40247 Document: 00514794613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2019
No. 18-40247

2

waiver are invalid because she received no benefit or consideration in exchange 

for her plea. She also asserts that the advisory guideline range was incorrectly 

calculated and that the judgment incorrectly states the crime of conviction.

We review the validity of the appeal waiver only for plain error because 

Salazar-Alanis did not make any challenge to the validity of the agreement in 

the district court. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 133-34 (2009). 

To establish plain error, Salazar-Alanis must show an error “that has not been 

intentionally relinquished or abandoned,” that is “clear or obvious, rather than 

subject to reasonable dispute,” and that has affected her substantial rights by 

affecting the outcome of the proceedings. Id. at 135. If she does that, we have 

the discretion to correct the error if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity 

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

citation, and amendment omitted). 

Although general contract principles apply to plea agreements, we have 

never expressly held that consideration is necessary to support a valid plea 

bargain. See United States v. Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231, 1239-40 (5th Cir. 

1991). Salazar-Alanis cites general principles of contract law in a wellexpressed effort to establish that consideration is required and that it is 

lacking in her case. Nonetheless, because no Fifth Circuit precedent supports 

her novel contention, we decline to find clear or obvious error in the district 

court’s acceptance of the plea agreement, where there was no contention that 

it was invalid for lack of consideration or any other reason. See United States 

v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, the plea agreement is enforceable. In addition, no exception 

applies because Salazar-Alanis does not contend that the sentence exceeded 

the statutory maximum sentence, and she does not attempt to raise a claim of 

ineffective counsel. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746-47 (5th

 Case: 18-40247 Document: 00514794613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2019
No. 18-40247

3

Cir. 2005). We therefore decline to consider her arguments that she should not 

have been assessed an aggravating-role increase and that the judgment 

incorrectly states that she was convicted of possession with the intent to 

manufacture as well as to distribute methamphetamine. See id. 

The judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 18-40247 Document: 00514794613 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/14/2019