Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory Dewayne WORTH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-24
Citations: 251 F. App'x 909
Docket Number: No. 06-40638
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory Dewayne WORTH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 909–910

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory Dewayne WORTH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40638
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2007.
Richard Lee Moore, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elizabeth L. Derieux, Brown McCarroll, Longview, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Dewayne Worth appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. Worth argues that the district court erred in increasing his offense level by two points under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on a finding that he obstructed justice. He further contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Government responds by seeking to enforce Worth's appeal waiver and contends that his arguments are barred from review.
Worth bore the burden of establishing a fair and just reason for withdrawing his guilty plea. See United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir.2003). Worth argues that he did not understand that he would be held responsible for 158 grams of crack cocaine. Based on a review of the totality of circumstances and an examination of the factors enumerated in United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.1984), we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Worth's motion to withdraw his plea. See id.
Worth pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement wherein he waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with the exception that he could appeal a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum. Worth's appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary, and therefore, the waiver is enforced. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir.1992). As such, we do not address the merits of Worth's challenge to his sentence because it does not fall within the exceptions to the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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.