Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-31
Citations: 79 F. App'x 654
Docket Number: No. 03-30444
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 654–654

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-30444
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 31, 2003.
Robert William Piedrahita, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gwendolyn K. Brown, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Darryl L. Williams appeals his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Williams contends on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the district court properly advised him of the maximum possible penalty for the offense of conviction, however, Williams cannot prevail on his argument that his reliance on misinformation from both prosecution and defense counsel about the likely period of incarceration rendered the plea involuntary. United States v. Gracia, 983 F.2d 625, 629 (5th Cir.1993); see also Fed. R.Crim. P. 11(d)(2).
The record indicates that Williams knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994). As a result, Williams waived his arguments that the district court erred in overruling his objection to the PSR and by applying the cross-reference of § 2K2.1(c).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.