1The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1749

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri

Jose Antonio Salcido-Gonzalez, also *

known as Tony, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 23, 1999

 Filed: January 13, 2000 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Antonio Salcido-Gonzalez appeals from the final judgment entered in the

District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri upon his guilty plea to conspiring

to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The district court sentenced appellant to five years
-2-

imprisonment. For reversal, appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his

motion for safety-valve relief. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss his appeal.

Prior to pleading guilty, Salcido-Gonzalez entered into a sentencing stipulation

in which he and the government “mutually agree[d] that they each waive[d] their right

to appeal the sentence of the District Court in this matter as part of the plea agreement,

unless the court departs either upwards or downward from the relevant guidelines

range.” This waiver is enforceable so long as it is the result of a knowing and voluntary

decision. See United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

119 S. Ct. 363 (1998). We conclude that Salcido-Gonzalez’s waiver was knowing and

voluntary because, at the time of his plea, he was 24 years old, had earned a high

school diploma, a degree in electrical engineering, and an electrical engineering license;

he was assisted by counsel and an interpreter at the change-of-plea and sentencing

hearings; the district court questioned him about the appeal waiver at the change-ofplea hearing, and engaged in an extended colloquy to determine that he was competent

to enter the plea, that he understood the sentencing stipulation, and that his plea was

knowing, free, and voluntary; the district court reminded him of the appeal waiver at

sentencing; and the sentencing stipulation advised him of the five-year mandatory

minimum term of imprisonment which he ultimately received. See id. at 871-72

(examining personal characteristics of defendant and circumstances surrounding plea

agreement when assessing knowledge and voluntariness of waiver); United States v.

Greger, 98 F.3d 1080, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 1996) (so long as sentence is not in conflict

with negotiated plea agreement, knowing and voluntary waiver of right to appeal from

sentence will be enforced; appeal waiver was knowing and intelligent where it was

included in plea agreement, it was discussed at change-of-plea hearing, court imposed

sentence without objection from defendant, and court reviewed appeal waiver at

sentencing).
-3-

We have previously enforced similar appeal waivers. See United States v.

Williams, 160 F.3d 450, 451 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Although SalcidoGonzalez’s five-year statutorily required sentence is above the otherwise applicable 46-

to-57-month Guidelines imprisonment range, it is not a departure from the Guidelines:

it is the Guidelines sentence. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b)

(where statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than maximum of applicable

Guidelines range, statutorily required minimum sentence shall be Guidelines sentence),

comment. (when statute requires minimum sentence, only sentence greater than

statutorily required sentence would be departure from Guidelines) (Nov. 1, 1998).

Accordingly, because Salcido-Gonzalez’s sentence was not a departure from the

Guidelines, we now specifically enforce his promise not to appeal by dismissing his

appeal. See United States v. Williams, 160 F.3d at 452.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.