Court Opinion

ID: 34470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:16:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:48.440353
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                                                                      F I L E D
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                       March 10, 2004
                                   FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                  _________________________                               Clerk
                                        No. 01 - 51274
                                    SUMMARY CALENDAR
                                  _________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff - Appellee

   v.

RIGOBERTO TOSCANO, also known as Rigo,

                       Defendant - Appellant

______________________________________________________________________________

                 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                              Western District of Texas
                                  (SA-00-CR-605-4)
______________________________________________________________________________

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.1

        Roberto Toscano challenges the factual basis for his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy

to distribute in excess of 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. There is, however, no nonfrivolous issue

for appeal with respect to Toscano’s conviction because as part of his written plea agreement,

Toscano validly waived his right to directly appeal his sentence. See United States v. Portillo, 18
F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

        1
        Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.

                                                -1-