Court Opinion

ID: 9556254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 18:01:08.528501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:42:02.414940
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40764        Document: 00516859695             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023

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

                                            FILED
                                     ____________
                                                                                August 16, 2023
                                      No. 22-40764                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jake Ellis Daughtry,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:20-CR-55-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jake Ellis Daughtry pleaded guilty to conspiracy to use the internet to
   distribute a date rape drug—1,4-butanediol—to persons that he knew or had
   reasonable cause to believe were not authorized purchasers, in violation of
   21 U.S.C. § 841(g) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. He now appeals from that judgment
   and challenges his conviction.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40764      Document: 00516859695          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 22-40764

          First, Daughtry challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
   withdraw his guilty plea. Although Daughtry’s plea agreement contained an
   appeal waiver, the Government does not seek to enforce the waiver with
   respect to this specific argument. Accordingly, our review of the district
   court’s denial of the withdrawal motion is for an abuse of discretion. See
   United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1013-14 (5th Cir. 2019).
          The record reflects that Daughtry was apprised of the elements of the
   offense of conviction and that he understood the nature of the charges against
   him, the consequences of the plea, and the nature of the constitutional
   protections he waived by pleading guilty. See United States v. Urias-Marrufo,
   744 F.3d 361, 366 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 559
   (5th Cir. 2002). His arguments to the contrary based on Ruan v. United
   States, 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022), fail to show that his guilty plea was not
   knowing and voluntary, and he otherwise fails to establish that the district
   court erred or abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his
   guilty plea. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1013-14; United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339,
   343-44 (5th Cir. 1984).
          Second, based on various challenges to § 841(g), Daughtry contends
   that the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea. The Government
   does assert Daughtry’s appeal waiver as to these arguments, and we are
   persuaded that the waiver is valid and enforceable as to them. See United
   States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 781-82 (5th Cir. 2011). Daughtry’s attempt to
   avoid the effect of the appeal waiver by characterizing the arguments as
   jurisdictional is misplaced. See United States v. Scruggs, 714 F.3d 258, 262-63
   (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Lastly, Daughtry contends that the district court erred in denying his
   motion to obtain transcripts of grand jury proceedings. This claim was

                                          2
Case: 22-40764      Document: 00516859695          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 22-40764

   waived at the very least by his unconditional guilty plea. See United States v.
   Daughenbaugh, 549 F.3d 1010, 1012 (5th Cir. 2008).
          Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. His
   motion to allow attachments to his initial brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

                                         3