Court Opinion

ID: 9890960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 00:00:28.164748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:15.165777
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60290         Document: 00516932282             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

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

                                      ____________                               FILED
                                                                          October 16, 2023
                                       No. 23-60290                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                            Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Henry Herrera Garcia,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 1:22-CR-91-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Henry Herrera Garcia pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
   agreement, to possession of 15 or more counterfeited and unauthorized
   access devices with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3).
   He was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment, followed by a three-year
   term of supervised release. On appeal, Garcia challenges his sentence as

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60290        Document: 00516932282          Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                      No. 23-60290

   substantively unreasonable, urging that it is greater than necessary to achieve
   the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) under the totality of the
   circumstances, including his role in the offense, his lack of criminal history,
   and his personal history and characteristics.
             Invoking the waiver of appeal provision in Garcia’s plea agreement,
   the Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary
   affirmance, asserting that the waiver is valid and enforceable and precludes
   Garcia’s sentencing challenge. The motion for summary affirmance is
   DENIED because the summary affirmance procedure is generally reserved
   for cases in which the parties concede that the issues are foreclosed by circuit
   precedent. Cf. United States v. Houston, 625 F.3d 871, 873 n.2 (5th Cir. 2010)
   (noting the denial of summary affirmance where an issue was not foreclosed).
             Garcia argues that his appeal waiver is not enforceable because it is
   unconstitutional, basing his argument on a concurring opinion in United
   States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 570-80 (5th Cir. 1992) (Parker, J.,
   concurring). However, as he apparently concedes, this court has held that
   appellate rights are “statutory, not constitutional” and that even
   constitutional rights can generally “be waived as part of a [valid] plea
   agreement.” United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2014); see also
   United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005); Melancon, 972 F.2d
   at 567.
             The validity of an appeal waiver is a question of law that we review de
   novo. Keele, 755 F.3d at 754. The record confirms that Garcia read and
   understood the plea agreement, which contained an “explicit, unambiguous
   waiver of appeal.” United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.
   2005). Thus, his appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States
   v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2014); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N).

                                            2
Case: 23-60290     Document: 00516932282           Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                    No. 23-60290

   Accordingly, he is bound by it unless the Government breached the plea
   agreement. See United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Garcia does not argue that the Government breached the plea
   agreement, and the record demonstrates that, to the contrary, the
   Government complied with each of its promises in the plea agreement.
   Consequently, the waiver is valid and enforceable, see Gonzalez, 309 F.3d at
   886, and bars Garcia’s challenge to his sentence. See Higgins, 739 F.3d at 736-
   37; United States v. Walters, 732 F.3d 489, 491 (5th Cir. 2013).
          Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s motion for
   dismissal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

                                         3