Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leonardo Alonso RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-03
Citations: 647 F. App'x 435
Docket Number: No. 15-50451
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leonardo Alonso RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 647
Pages: 435–436

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leonardo Alonso RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50451
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 3, 2016.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Vivek Grover, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leonardo Alonso Rodriguez pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Rodriguez to 180 months of imprisonment and six years of supervised release. Rodriguez appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by imposing a three-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b) based on his role as a manager or supervisor in the offense. However, Rodriguez's plea agreement contains an appeal waiver provision that precludes his challenge to the district court's sentence.
In an attempt to avoid the enforcement of the appeal waiver, Rodriguez argues that his plea agreement is invalid because it is proeedurally and substantively unconscionable. He asserts that the plea agreement is proeedurally unconscionable because the parties had unequal bargaining power. He further asserts that the agreement is substantively unconscionable because it is "grossly one sided," as he maintains that he gave up numerous important rights and received "very little, if anything" in return.
Because Rodriguez did not challenge the validity of the plea agreement in the district court and did not attempt to withdraw his plea on grounds that the plea agree ment was unconscionable, we apply plain error review to his claims. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). Our review of the plea agreement reveáis no plain error with respect to Rodriguez's unconscionability arguments. Rodriguez was free to reject the agreement and to either go'to trial or plead guilty without a plea agreement, and the plea agreement provided Rodriguez with significant benefits.
The appeal waiver in the plea agreement bars Rodriguez's challenge to the district court's sentence. Accordingly, the appeal is 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.