United States Court of Appeals

for 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, Circuit 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, reserving the right to, inter alia, challenge the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 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: 08/29/2022
No. 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 (5th 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”. Id.

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 referred 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: 08/29/2022
No. 21-11045

3

In these 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 (5th 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 where 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