Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julio RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-10
Citations: 575 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 12-50824
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julio RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julio RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50824
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 10, 2014.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Angela Sandoval Raba, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jaime Iran Aldape, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Julio Rodriguez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment, the mandatory minimum sentence, and five years of supervised release. Rodriguez contends that he was entitled to a downward departure, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4, based on his alcohol abuse, and that the district court mistakenly believed that it could not depart on that basis. The Government responds that his claims of error are barred by his appeal waiver.
Rodriguez does not acknowledge the existence of the appeal waiver much less challenge its validity on appeal. A review of the record indicates that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence, see United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir.1994), and that his claims of error regarding his sentence are barred by the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. Counsel is WARNED that the filing of an appeal contrary to a valid appeal waiver is a needless waste of resources and could result in sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 224 (5th Cir.1999).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.