IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50213

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

EDGAR ACOSTA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-1-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edgar Acosta pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy 

to import marijuana. In the plea agreement, Acosta waived the right to appeal 

his sentence on all grounds and retained the right to challenge his sentence 

only to the extent that it resulted from a violation of his constitutional rights 

based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct of 

 

* 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 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50213 Document: 00513329204 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2016
No. 15-50213

2

a constitutional dimension. The district court varied downwardly from the 

advisory guidelines range and sentenced Acosta to 24 months of imprisonment. 

Acosta argues that the district court wrongly determined his base offense 

level and, as a result, incorrectly calculated his advisory guidelines range. He 

asserts that he was not responsible for the drugs attributed to him as relevant 

conduct and that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by assigning 

to him drug amounts to which he did not admit and which a jury did not find 

beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government contends that the appeal waiver 

in the plea agreement bars Acosta’s claim. We review the validity of an appeal 

waiver de novo. United States v. Burns, 433 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2005).

The record establishes that Acosta knowingly and voluntarily waived his 

right to appeal. Acosta knew that he had the right to appeal, indicated that he 

reviewed and understood the waiver, and understood that he was waiving his 

appellate rights under the terms of the waiver. See United States v. McKinney, 

406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government complied with the plea 

agreement and intends to enforce the appeal waiver, which includes the claim 

that Acosta seeks to assert. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231

(5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005); United 

States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, the appeal waiver 

bars Acosta’s argument.

Acosta also argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance 

by not challenging the reasonableness of the sentence. To the extent that this

argument falls within an exception to the waiver, the record is not sufficiently 

developed to enable us to consider this claim fairly. Accordingly, we decline to 

consider it on direct appeal without prejudice to any right Acosta has to raise 

it on collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014). 

 Case: 15-50213 Document: 00513329204 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2016
No. 15-50213

3

Thus, Acosta has asserted claims that are barred by the appeal waiver 

or not suitable for resolution on appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

See United States v. Walters, 732 F.3d 489, 491 (5th Cir. 2013). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 Case: 15-50213 Document: 00513329204 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/05/2016