# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 11045 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Anthony Lee Martinez,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 90

- 1

Before **Barksdale, Higginson,** and **Ho,** C ircuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Anthony Lee Martinez pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a felony conviction , in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2)

. In his plea agreement, Martinez generally waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence , reserv ing the right to, inter alia , challenge the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 29, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-11045 Document: 00516451054 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2022No. 21

- 11045

2 voluntariness of the agreement. Pursuant to the above

- described exception to the appeal

- waiver, Martinez contends his plea was not knowing and voluntary , claiming , as discussed infra , the magistrate judge failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. United States v. Guerra , 94 F.3d 989, 995 (5 th Cir. 1996) (A guilty plea must be a “voluntary, knowing , and intelligent act”.). As he concedes, Martinez did not preserve this issue in district court

. Therefore, review is only for plain error

. E.g. , United States v. Broussard , 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Martinez must show a forfeited plain error (clear or obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. E.g. , Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, our court has the discretion to correct such reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “ seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings ”

. I d

. Martinez contends : the magistrate judge , by failing to fully explain the terms of the waiver provision in the plea agreement , violated Rule 11(b)(1)(N), which requires the court to “inform the defendant of, and determine

. . . the defendant understands” , the terms of any appeal waiver in his agreement. **Fed. R. Crim. P**

**.** 11(b)(1)(N). Martinez’ plea agreement clearly and unambiguously included the waiver of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, subject to identified exceptions. At rearraignment, the magistrate judge refer r ed to the appeal

- waiver provision , and Martinez confirmed he read it, fully understood it, discussed it with his attorney , and knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal

. Further, Martinez confirmed he understood the terms of his appeal waiver by signing the plea agreement

. Case: 21-11045 Document: 00516451054 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2022No. 21

- 11045

3 In thes e circumstances, Martinez has not demonstrated the requisite clear

- or

- obvious error concerning Rule 11(b)(1)(N). E .g

. , United States v. Oliver , 630 F.3d 397, 412 (5 th Cir. 2011) ( ruling appeal waiver provision valid without court fully reciting the terms of the plea agreement) ; United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292

- 93 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding plea agreements will be enforced whe re record clearly showed defendant read plea agreement, understood its contents, sought a guilty plea , and raised no issue regarding an appeal

- waiver provision , “regardless of whether the court specifically admonished him concerning the waiver of appeal” )

. **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-11045 Document: 00516451054 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/29/2022