Court Opinion

ID: 35822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:33:11+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:00.897965
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                             FILED
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS        June 23, 2004
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                       Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                               Clerk

                            No. 03-50746
                        Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OCTAVIO LOZOYA, JR.,

                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                   USDC No. EP-02-CR-1853-1-RF
                       --------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Octavio Lozoya, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction for

conspiracy to harbor an illegal alien with death resulting and

harboring an illegal alien with death resulting.   Lozoya argues

that the appeal-waiver provision in his plea agreement should not

be enforced to bar his challenge to his consecutive sentence.              He

concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our opinion in United

States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1992), and its

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
                             No. 03-50746
                                  -2-

progeny.   He raises the issue to preserve it for possible Supreme

Court review.

     A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s

decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding

decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States

Supreme Court.     Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466

(5th Cir. 1999).    No such decision overruling Melancon exists.

Accordingly, Lozoya’s argument is indeed foreclosed.    The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

     The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief.    In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required.    The motion is GRANTED.

     AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.