United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-40566

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Dario De Los Santos-Pascal, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-74-3 

______________________________

Before King, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Dario De Los Santos-Pascal appeals his conviction and sentence for

conspiracy to manufacture and distribute heroin while intending, knowing, 

and having reason to believe it would be unlawfully imported into the United 

States. He argues that his guilty plea should be vacated because his appeal 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 30, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-40566 Document: 51-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2024
No. 23-40566

2

waiver is ambiguous and confusing and because the plea colloquy was 

insufficient to ensure that the appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary.

We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v. 

Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). But because Santos-Pascal did 

not object to the plea colloquy in the district court, we review the alleged Rule 

11 violation for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). 

To prevail on plain error review, Santos-Pascal must show a forfeited error 

that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes this showing, we have

the discretion to correct the error but should do so only if it “seriously affects 

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

(internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted).

We perceive no error by the magistrate judge. Santos-Pascal’s signed 

plea agreement and the transcript of his plea colloquy reflect that he read and 

understood the plea agreement and appeal waiver, that he was aware of his 

right to appeal, that he was waiving that right in the plea agreement, and that 

he had no questions about the plea agreement. See United States v. Portillo, 

18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). The record demonstrates that there was no 

error, plain or otherwise, regarding the sufficiency of the plea colloquy to 

ensure that Santos-Pascal understood the terms of the appeal waiver in 

accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N) and that the 

appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. AlvaradoCasas, 715 F.3d 945, 949, 953 (5th Cir. 2013); see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

We also reject Santos-Pascal’s contention that the language in the appeal 

waiver was ambiguous such that he could not have understood it to validly 

waive his right to appeal. See United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 781 (5th 

Cir. 2011).

Case: 23-40566 Document: 51-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2024
No. 23-40566

3

Appointed counsel Josh Norrell’s continued assertion of similar

unavailing challenges to plea colloquies borders on frivolous. Counsel is 

WARNED that sanctions may be imposed for the filing of frivolous appeals. 

See United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994); Coghlan v. 

Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-40566 Document: 51-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/30/2024