Court Opinion

ID: 9408791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 18:00:43.791952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:46.891161
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60553         Document: 00516819499             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                       No. 22-60553                               July 13, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Daniel Ray Metsinger,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 3:21-CR-77-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Daniel Ray Metsinger pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex
   offender. Metsinger appeals, challenging four supervised release conditions.
   In response, the Government has filed a motion to dismiss Metsinger’s
   appeal based on the appellate waiver in his plea agreement and, alternatively,
   for summary affirmance.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60553      Document: 00516819499            Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                      No. 22-60553

          Metsinger concedes that his appellate waiver, if enforceable, would
   bar this appeal. However, Metsinger argues that the appellate waiver is
   unenforceable because the Government breached the plea agreement by
   recommending a supervised release condition not found within the
   Sentencing Guidelines.
          We review appeal waivers de novo. See United States v. Jacobs, 635
   F.3d 778, 780-81 (5th Cir. 2011). “[S]ummary disposition is proper” when
   “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that
   there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where,
   as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp.,
   Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Dismissal is the appropriate
   remedy for enforcement of an appellate waiver. See United States v. Story,
   439 F.3d 226, 230-31 & n.5 (5th Cir. 2006). “This court applies general
   principles of contract law in interpreting the terms of a plea agreement.”
   United States v. Long, 722 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 2013). We thus analyze the
   plain language of the plea agreement on its face. Id.
          Metsinger’s plea agreement did not prohibit the Government from
   recommending supervised release conditions beyond those set forth in the
   Guidelines. He has, therefore, failed to demonstrate a breach, and his
   appellate waiver is enforceable.
          The Government’s motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED and
   the appeal is DISMISSED. The alternative motion for summary
   affirmance is DENIED.

                                               2