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

No. 14

- 60022 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JEROME GORDON WELLINGTON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:12

- CR

- 104

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * In 2013, Jerome Gordon Wellington pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)

. The district court imposed a sentence of 188 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release, with the sentence to run concurrently with the total 151

- month sentence imposed in 2009 for guilty

plea convictions for drug

- related offens es. On appeal, Wellington challenges

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 June 18, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60022 Document: 00513083920 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2015No. 14

- 60022

2 his money laundering conviction and sentence, asserting that the Government breached the terms of the plea agreement in the drug cases by indicting him for money laundering

. Invoking the waiver of appeal provision in Wellington’s plea agreement in the money laundering case , the Government moves for dismissal of Wellington ’s appe al, or, in the alternative, for summary affirmance. The government con tend s that the waiver is valid and enforceable and precludes Wellington f rom challenging his conviction or sentence for any reason.
Because the summary affirmance procedure is generally reserved for cases in which the parties concede that the issues are f oreclosed by circuit precedent,

s ee, e.g., United States v. Houston , 625 F.3d 871, 873 n.2 (5th Cir. 2010), the Government ’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. We reach a different result, however, on the motion to dismiss which seeks to enforce the appellate waiver. The validity of an appeal waiver is a question of law that we review de novo. See United States v. Burns , 43 3 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2005). The record indicates that Wellington read and understood the plea agreement, which contained an “explicit, unambiguous waiver of appeal.” United States v. McKinney , 4 06 F.3d 744, 746 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2005) . Thus, Wellington’s appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Higgins , 739 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 134 S. Ct.
2319 (2014) ; F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11(b)( 1)(N). Accordingly, he is bound by it unless the Government breached the plea agreement. See United States v. Gonzalez , 309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002). Wellington does not allege that the Government breached the plea agreement in this case , and an ex amination of
the record reveals that the Government fulfilled its obligations under the plea agreement. Therefore, the appeal waiver provision is vali d and binding and Case: 14-60022 Document: 00513083920 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2015No. 14

- 60022

3 bars the appeal of Wellington’s money laundering conviction or sentence for

any reason. See Higgins , 739 F.3d at 738

- 39

. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s motion for
dismissal is GRANTED , and the appeal is DISMISSED

.

1 It is worth noting that the plea agreement in the earlier drug case, which is the one Wellington contends the governmen t breached, included a government agreement to not seek "further criminal prosecution [of Welllington] for any acts or conduct disclosed by [Wellington] . . . arising out of any event covered by the indictment . . . if [Wellington] voluntarily, truthfully, and completely disclose[d] all information and knowledge" he had. At the sentencing in this case at which Wellington raised the issue concerning his prior plea, the government vigorously disputed that it had breached this agreement. Its position was tha t Wellington refused to talk about his finances during his debriefing because he was aware of an ongoing money laundering investigation for which he was not the source. Case: 14-60022 Document: 00513083920 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/18/2015