Court Opinion

ID: 9411558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 00:01:52.997041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.477641
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11043        Document: 00516834655             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/26/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-11043
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     July 26, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Salvador Sanchez Garcia,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CR-118-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Salvador Sanchez Garcia pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
   agreement, to possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance
   containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and was sentenced to
   140 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In the
   plea agreement, Sanchez Garcia waived his right to appeal and to collaterally

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11043      Document: 00516834655           Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                     No. 22-11043

   challenge his conviction and sentence but preserved the right to, inter alia,
   challenge the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the appeal waiver.
          On appeal, Sanchez Garcia argues that the magistrate judge’s failure
   to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N) rendered his
   guilty plea void as unknowing and involuntary. Sanchez Garcia did not object
   to the court’s colloquy, therefore we review for plain error. See United States
   v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Under that standard, Sanchez Garcia must
   “demonstrate that his substantial rights were affected by the [court]’s alleged
   failure to explain the terms of the appeal waiver adequately.” United States
   v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397, 412 (5th Cir. 2011). Even if the error is plain, we may
   only vacate if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public
   reputation of judicial proceedings.”      Id. (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
          Rule 11 specifically requires that the court, before it accepts a plea of
   guilty, “inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant
   understands . . . the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right
   to appeal or collaterally attack the sentence.”        Fed. R. Crim. P.
   11(b)(1)(N). However, the court is not required to “specifically admonish[]
   [the defendant] concerning the waiver of appeal.” United States v. Portillo,
   18 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 1994). Rather, the court need only confirm that
   the defendant “read the agreement, understood its contents, and wished to
   plead guilty.” Id.; see United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.
   2005) (“Because [the defendant] indicated that he had read and understood
   the plea agreement, which includes an explicit, unambiguous waiver of
   appeal, the waiver was both knowing and voluntary.”).
          Here, the fully executed, valid plea agreement contained a clearly
   written, unambiguous waiver-of-appeal provision, and the magistrate judge
   confirmed that Sanchez Garcia had read that provision, discussed it with his

                                              2
Case: 22-11043      Document: 00516834655           Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                     No. 22-11043

   attorney, and understood its terms. “Nowhere in the record is there any
   indication that [Sanchez Garcia] did not understand or was confused by the
   waiver-of-appeal provision,” and therefore he “will be held to the bargain to
   which he agreed,” notwithstanding the absence of a recitation of the terms
   of the waiver during the plea colloquy.          Portillo, 18 F.3d at 292-93.
   Accordingly, Sanchez Garcia has not demonstrated plain error. See Oliver,
   630 F.3d at 412; see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          AFFIRMED.

                                              3