Court Opinion

ID: 9961746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 18:00:49.769348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:46.102866
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10584            Document: 52-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/19/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-10584
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                  April 19, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Joshua Matthew Garvin,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CR-252-1
                   ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Joshua Matthew Garvin appeals his conviction for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He contends that his
guilty plea should be vacated because the magistrate judge violated Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N) during his plea colloquy by failing
either to recite the terms of his appeal waiver or to read the full waiver
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 23-10584       Document: 52-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/19/2024

                                  No. 23-10584

provision from his plea agreement instead of referring to the waiver and
noting that it had exceptions. We review the forfeited Rule 11 argument for
plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Garvin must
show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights.
See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a
showing, this court has discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See
id.
       We perceive no error by the magistrate judge. Garvin’s signed plea
agreement and the transcript of his plea colloquy reflect that he read and
understood the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, that he was aware of
his right to appeal and that he was waiving it in the plea agreement, and that
he had no questions about the waiver. See United States v. Alvarado-Casas,
715 F.3d 945, 949, 955 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397,
411-12 (5th Cir. 2011). Additionally, Garvin’s argument on the third prong
of the plain error standard is purely conclusory, see United States v.
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82-83 (2004), and he entirely fails to address
the fourth prong, see United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 273-74 (5th Cir.
2015). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
       Appointed counsel Josh Norrell’s continued assertion, largely
verbatim, of the same unavailing challenge to plea colloquies that are
essentially indistinguishable now borders on frivolous.              Counsel is
WARNED that sanctions may be imposed for the filing of frivolous appeals.
See United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994); Coghlan v.
Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988).

                                        2