Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffery D. ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-30
Citations: 323 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 08-30664
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffery D. ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffery D. ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30664
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 30, 2009.
Robert William Piedrahita, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mid- die District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John H. Craft, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jeffery D. Ellis pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting the conspiracy. 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841; 18 U.S.C. § 2. He now seeks to appeal his 108-month guidelines sentence on the basis that changes to the guidelines calculations and applicable guidelines sentencing range were untimely. The Government argues that Ellis waived this argument as part of the appeal waiver in his plea agreement.
The record reflects that Ellis knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence except in limited circumstances not present in the instant appeal. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.2005). Because the waiver is valid, the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Counsel John Harvey Craft is warned that pursuing an appeal despite a valid appeal waiver provision in the plea agreement and failing to address the waiver in a reply brief after it was raised by the Government in its brief is a needless waste of judicial resources and will invite sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 224 (5th Cir.1999).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.