Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dora Maria FLORES-QUINTANA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-14
Citations: 444 F. App'x 819
Docket Number: No. 11-40076
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dora Maria FLORES-QUINTANA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 819–819

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dora Maria FLORES-QUINTANA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-40076
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 14, 2011.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gregory L. Ahlgren, Ahlgren Law Firm, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dora Maria Flores-Quintana (Flores) pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin, and she was sentenced within the guidelines range to 135 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Flores agreed in the written plea agreement to waive her right to appeal her conviction, her sentence, and the manner in which her sentence was determined, with no exceptions. The Government has expressed its intent to enforce the waiver.
Flores argues on appeal that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a). However, this argument is barred by her appeal waiver. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir.2006). Although Flores asserts that if the Government enforces the waiver, she preserves for possible Supreme Court review "her argument that appeal waivers made without knowledge of the rights being sacrificed are neither knowing nor voluntary," she has not adequately briefed the issue, and thus she has abandoned it. See United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353, 360 & n. 30 (5th Cir.2007); Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 612-13 (5th Cir.1999); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir.1986).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.