### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10658 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
NEIL NICK RENE , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 95

- 3

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Neil Nick Rene pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments , and h e was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. As part of the agreement, Rene broadly waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, reserving only the right s to appeal any punishment

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 8, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10658 Document: 00512728060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2014No. 13

- 10658
imposed in excess of the statutory maximum , to challenge the voluntariness o f his guilty plea or appeal waiver, and to bring a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that influenced the voluntariness of the plea or waiver. On appeal, Rene contends that the district court erred in applying the importation enhancement under U.S. S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(14)(C) and in determining the drug quantities used to calculate his base offense level and further that the district court failed to properly consider and weigh relevant mitigating fa ctors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

. The Government argues t hat the appeal is barred by the appeal waiver provision of the plea agreement. Rene acknowledg es the waiver but contends it is in valid. As an initial matter, Rene ’s conten tion that his guilty plea violates due process because he was not aware of the actua l sentence he faced or that he would be held accountable for “factually unsupported” drug amounts is refuted by the record

. In writing and during his rearraignment, Rene verified that he understood that he faced a maximum possible penalty of 20 years in p rison on each count . He therefore was fully aware of the consequences of his guilty plea. See United States v. Guerra , 94 F.3d 989, 995 (5th Cir. 1996). Further , t he record of Rene’s r earraignment shows that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, as Rene knew he had the right to appeal and that he was giving up that right as set forth in the plea agreement. See United States v. McKinney , 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Portillo , 18 F .3d 290, 292

- 93 (5th Cir. 1994). Rene’s argumen t that he was unaware he would be without recourse to correct an “improper” or “unjust” sentence resulting from an unforeseen offense level does not alter this conclusion. See United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 56 7

- 68 (5th Cir. 1992). Similarly, Re ne’s challenge to the group guilty

- plea procedure fails, as the record reflects that the magistrate judge addressed the defendants individually and was

2 Case: 13-10658 Document: 00512728060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2014No. 13

- 10658
careful to obtain individual answers from each defendant, including Rene, and Rene did not object to the procedure

. See United States v. Salazar

- Olivares , 179 F.3d 228, 229

- 30 (5th Cir. 1999). Further, the waiver was not rendered invalid by the district court’s mistaken assertion at sentencing regarding Rene ’s appellate r ights and the Government’s failure to correct the mistake

. See Melancon , 972 F.2d at 568. Because the plain language of the appeal waiver provision applies to Rene ’s challenge s to his sentence , we will enforce the waiver and DISMISS the appeal

. See United States v. Bond , 414 F.3d 542, 5 45

- 46 (5th Cir. 2005)

.

3 Case: 13-10658 Document: 00512728060 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2014