IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40169

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LONNIE LANDON, also known as Chin,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-19-7

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lonnie Landon pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess 

cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve 262 months in 

prison and a five-year term of supervised release. In this appeal, he raises 

several challenges to his conviction and sentence. 

First, he argues that his plea was involuntary because he was not 

advised that he faced a potential lifetime term of supervised release. Because

* 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

April 20, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40169 Document: 00513011089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2015
No. 14-40169

this particular claim was not presented to the district court, we consider it 

under the plain error standard. See United States v. Castro-Trevino, 464 F.3d 

536, 540-41 (5th Cir. 2006). “[A] defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction 

after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain error 

under Rule 11, must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he 

would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 

U.S. 74, 83 (2004).

The record shows that Landon was accurately advised that he faced a 

maximum sentence of life in prison. Because his potential maximum prison 

term and supervised release term, when added together, do not exceed the 

maximum possible sentence of which he was advised, the plain error standard 

is not met. See United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 560-561 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Additionally, nothing in the record suggests that Landon would not have 

pleaded guilty had the district court informed him that it could impose a 

lifetime term of supervised release. See Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. 

Landon has not shown that his plea was involuntary because he was not 

informed of the potential for a lifetime term of supervised release. 

Next, Landon argues that his appellate waiver is unenforceable because 

the Government did not fulfill its obligation to dismiss the remaining charge 

against him. Our review of the record refutes this assertion, as the judgment 

shows that the charge was dismissed. Our review of the record also shows that 

Landon’s appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary, as he knew that he had 

the right to appeal and that he was giving up that right by entering the plea 

agreement. United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005); United 

States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994). Additionally, the waiver, 

which has been invoked by the Government in this appeal, precludes 

consideration of Landon’s claims concerning his sentence. Accordingly, the 

2

 Case: 14-40169 Document: 00513011089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2015
No. 14-40169

Government’s motion for summary dismissal is GRANTED, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED. The Government’s alternate motion for an extension of time in 

which to file a brief is DENIED. 

3

 Case: 14-40169 Document: 00513011089 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/20/2015