Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime CERVANTES-GARCIA, 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 269
Docket Number: No. 04-41753
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime CERVANTES-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 153
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime CERVANTES-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41753.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Nov. 9, 2005.
Michele A. Ratcliffe, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Amy R. Blalock, Denise S. Benson, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jaime Cervantes-Garcia appeals his sentence following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after deportation. He contends that he was sentenced in contravention of United, States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
Cervantes-Garcia's plea agreement contained an express waiver of his right to appeal on all grounds, except "(a) any punishment imposed in excess of the statutory maximum; (b) any upward departure from the guideline range deemed most applicable by the sentencing court; (c) arithmetic errors in the guidelines calculations; and (d) a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that affects the validity of the waiver itself." Our review of the record indicates that the waiver was knowing and voluntary and that under its plain language, it bars review of Cervantes-Garcia's Booker claim. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 545-46 (5th Cir.2005). Cervantes-Garcia's appeal is therefore dismissed.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.