Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Lee CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-11
Citations: 257 F. App'x 799
Docket Number: No. 07-10235
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Lee CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 257
Pages: 799–800

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Lee CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10235
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 11, 2007.
Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Chavez appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. Chavez argues that the district court plainly erred by assessing him a "career offender" enhancement based on his two prior Texas convictions for controlled-substance offenses.
The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance based on the waiver-of-appeal provision in Chavez's plea agreement. The Government asserts that Chavez knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights on this issue.
Our review of the record shows that Chavez's appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary and that, under the plain language of the plea agreement, the waiver applies to the circumstances at hand. See United States v. Burus, 433 F.3d 442, 445-46 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Chavez's appeal waiver bars review of the issue he seeks to raise on appeal.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the Government's motion for an extension of time is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.