Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ganiyu Atanda OSHO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-11
Citations: 176 F. App'x 461
Docket Number: No. 04-20257
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ganiyu Atanda OSHO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 461–462

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ganiyu Atanda OSHO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-20257.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 11, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ganiyu Atanda Osho appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting and possession of stolen mail. As part of his plea agreement, Osho agreed to waive the right to appeal the sentence imposed and the manner in which it was determined, except for a sentence above the statutory maximum or an upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines. The Government seeks to enforce the waiver. Osho argues that this waiver does not bar his appeal because his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), since his sentence was enhanced based on facts to which he did not admit. He also contends that he could not have waived his rights under a decision that had not been issued at the time he pleaded guilty.
Osho's appeal waiver is enforceable and bars his right to challenge his sentence on the grounds asserted. See United States v. Burns, 433 F.3d 442, 450-51 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 545 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.