Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Lee GRAD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-09
Citations: 153 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 04-10911
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Lee GRAD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 153
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Lee GRAD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10911.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 9, 2005.
Marc Woodson Barta, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bonita L Gunden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Lee Grad appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for three counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d). He argues that the waiver of appeal provision in his plea agreement does not bar his appeal because he reserved the right to appeal a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum punishment. In United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 545-46 (5th Cir. 2005), we determined that there was no indication in the plea agreement that the parties meant for the term "statutory maximum" to be accorded the definition used in United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Bond, 414 F.3d at 545-46. We therefore applied the usual and ordinary meaning of the term, i.e., "the upper limit of punishment that Congress had legislatively specified for violation of a statute." Id.
In light of Bond, we interpret the virtually identical appeal waiver in the instant case as using the usual and ordinary meaning of the term "statutory maximum" to mean the upper limit of punishment specified by Congress in enacting the statute under which Grad was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d). See id. Because Grad's 84-month sentence did not exceed the 25-year statutory maximum sentence for Grad's offenses, the exception to the waiver of appeal provision does not apply to Grad's appeal. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). Therefore, Grad's appeal of his sentence is barred by the appeal waiver, and Grad's appeal is DISMISSED. Because Grad waived the right to appeal his sentence, we need not address his Sixth Amendment claim relating to his sentence.
APPEAL 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.