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 guiltyplea convictions for drug-related offenses. On appeal, Wellington challenges 

 

* 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

June 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60022 Document: 00513083920 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2015
No. 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 appeal, or, in the alternative, for summary affirmance. The 

government contends that the waiver is valid and enforceable and precludes 

Wellington from 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 foreclosed by circuit precedent, 

see, 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, 433 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, 406 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); FED. R. CRIM. 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 examination of 

the record reveals that the Government fulfilled its obligations under the plea 

agreement. Therefore, the appeal waiver provision is valid and binding and 

 Case: 14-60022 Document: 00513083920 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2015
No. 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 government 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 

that 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