Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50456 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee,
ve r s us P E D R O L O P E Z -C A S T IL L O , A l so K n ow n as Ped ro C astil l o L opez, A l so K n ow n as Ped ro C astil l o- L opez, D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 08- C R

- 270- 1

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: *
Pedro Lopez

- C as t i l l o a ppeal s t he s ent enc e i m pos ed f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l t yUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 7, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50456 Document: 00511133736 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2010N o. 09- 50456

2 pl ea conv i ct i on . For t h e f i rstt i m e on ap pea l , he contend s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt e r r e din n o t a w a r d in gh im aU .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 s a fe ty -v a lv e re d u c tio n a n din fa ili ng t o i m po s e as e nt e nc e b e l o w t he st atutor y m i ni m um . As t he g o ve r nm e nt c o nt e nds , ho w e ve r , t he ap pe al i s ba r r e d by t he w aive r - o f

- ap pe alpr o vi s i o n i n t he p le aa g r e e m e n t , w h i c h w a s k n o w in g , v o lu n ta r y , a n de n fo r c e a b le
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. R obi n son , 1 8 7 F .3 d 5 1 6 , 5 1 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); Un itedS ta tes v. Po rtillo , 1 8 F .3 d2 9 0 , 2 9 2 -9 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); F ED . R . C RIM . P
. 1 1 (b )(1)(N ). L o p e z -C a s tillo n o n e th e le s s a r g u e s t h a t th e a p p e lla te -w a iv e rp r o v is io n is u n en f orceabl e, becau se t h e govern m en t breach ed t h e pl ea agreem en tby n otreque s t i ng a s af

e t y- va lve re duc t i o n. Thata r gum e ntfail s , b e c aus e t he g o ve r nm e nt w a s u n d e r n o o b lig a tio n to r e q u e s t su c h r e d u c tio n a n d b e c a u s e L o p e z -C a s tillo di d no tq uali f

y f o r i t . Li ke w i s e , hi s a s s e r t i o n t hatt he g o ve r nm e ntb r e ac he d t he t erm s of

t h e agreem en t b y n otf i l i n g a m ot i on f

or r edu ct i on of

sentence un der Fed eralR u l e o f

Cr i m i nalPr o c e dur e 3 5 i s una va i l i ng, b e c aus e t he g o ve r nm e nt di d notb ar ga i n a w ayi t s di s c r e t i o n t o f i l e f o ras e nt e nc i ng r e duc t i o n, a nd the a g r e e m e n t d idn o t o th e r w is e o b lig a te t h e g o v e r n m e n t to f ile s u c h a m o tio n . S ee W ad e v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 0 4 U .S . 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 (1 9 9 2 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. S n eed , 63 F. 3d 38 1, 3 88 n. 6 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 5)
. Final l y, Lo pe z - Cas t i l l o ’ s a l t e r nat ive a r gum e ntSS t h at th e w aiver, even if en f orceabl e, does not app l y, becau se hi s c l ai m i n volves an al l egati on of prosecutor i al m i scondu ctt h at i s excl u ded un der t h e w aiverSSis w i th ou t m erit. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-50456 Document: 00511133736 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2010