Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter HALAT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-29
Citations: 143 F. App'x 629
Docket Number: No. 04-60089
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter HALAT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter HALAT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-60089.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 29, 2005.
Richard Terrell Starrett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District Of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter Halat, Jr., Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
We dismiss the appeal for the following reason:
In Defendant's direct appeal, this Court held that "Halat waived his right to appeal his sentence in exchange for the government's agreement not to appeal a sentence imposed below the guideline range." United States v. Sharpe, 193 F.3d 852, 871 (5th Cir.1999). This waiver applies to a collateral attack on the sentence. In United States v. Baty, the Court explained, "We think that a defendant's waiver of her right to appeal deserves and, indeed, requires the special attention of the district court. When a defendant waives her right to appeal, she gives up the very valuable right to correct a district court's unknown and unannounced sentence." 980 F.2d 977, 978 (5th Cir.1992). The transcript reveals that the district court paid the requisite special attention. Defendant's counsel, Mr. Chasnoff, stated, "There will be no appeal of the final sentence given by this Court ." (emphasis added). The bottom line is that the record from the district court unambiguously establishes that Defendant chose to forsake all avenues of appeal of his sentence.
Dismissed.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.