United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-40641

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Alejandro Vazquez-Padilla, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:23-CR-76-1 

______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alejandro Vazquez-Padilla pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea 

agreement, to conspiracy to import and conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute 50 grams of methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of a 

substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and the 

district court sentenced him to 210 months in prison. On appeal, Vazquez-

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 19, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-40641 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2024
No. 23-40641

2

Padilla challenges his sentence, arguing that the Government breached the 

plea agreement by not fulfilling its obligation to advocate for a safety-valve 

reduction.

Invoking the waiver of appeal provision in Vazquez-Padilla’s plea 

agreement, the Government moves for dismissal of the appeal, contending 

that the waiver is valid and enforceable and precludes Vazquez-Padilla from 

challenging his conviction or sentence except where a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel is raised. Vazquez-Padilla opposes the Government’s 

motion, arguing that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary in light of the 

Government’s breach.

The validity of an appeal waiver is a question of law that we review de 

novo. United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). The record 

indicates that Vazquez-Padilla read and understood the plea agreement, 

which contained an “explicit, unambiguous waiver of appeal.” United States 

v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). Thus, his appeal waiver was 

knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 736 (5th 

Cir. 2014); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N). The record also reflects that 

the appeal waiver “applies to the circumstances at hand, based on the plain 

language of the plea agreement,” Higgins, 739 F.3d at 736, as VazquezPadilla’s appellate issue does not fall within the stated exception to the appeal 

waiver. 

While a defendant is released from an appeal waiver if the 

Government has breached the plea agreement, see United States v. Gonzalez, 

309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002), the record reveals that the Government 

complied with all of the terms of the written plea agreement. The 

Government made only two promises – to dismiss the remaining counts of 

the indictment and to move for the additional third point deduction for 

acceptance of responsibility. The plea agreement did not contain any 

Case: 23-40641 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2024
No. 23-40641

3

promises regarding a safety-valve reduction, and nothing in the record 

suggests that the terms of the plea agreement had been modified.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for dismissal is GRANTED, 

and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Case: 23-40641 Document: 64-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2024