Court Opinion

ID: 9364208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 19:00:18.946006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:36.609827
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40185        Document: 00516614053             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/18/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                    FILED
                                                                               January 18, 2023
                                      No. 22-40185
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                     Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Tommy Ray Williams,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:20-CR-210-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Tommy Ray Williams pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
   agreement with an appeal waiver, to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in
   violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 and 1343. The district court concluded that a
   within-Guidelines sentence was not sufficient under the circumstances and
   sentenced Williams to 180 months of imprisonment, which represented an

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40185      Document: 00516614053          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/18/2023

                                    No. 22-40185

   upward variance from the Guidelines based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   sentencing factors.
          Williams appeals his sentence and argues the district court
   procedurally erred by failing to provide an adequate explanation for its
   decision to impose the variance and that the sentence is substantively
   unreasonable. He argues the appeal waiver — under which he agreed, in
   relevant part, to waive his right to appeal his sentence except for a sentence
   exceeding the statutory maximum — does not bar the appeal. He asserts he
   agreed to the waiver “in exchange for the expectation that he would be given
   adequate due process and an explanation for the basis of his sentence,” but
   he contends the district court failed to give adequate notice and reasons for
   the variance.
          The Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the
   appeal waiver. The motion was carried with the case, and the Government
   filed a brief re-urging dismissal based on the appeal waiver and, alternatively,
   argued Williams failed to show that his sentence is unreasonable.
          We review de novo whether the appeal waiver bars this appeal. United
   States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 780–81 (5th Cir. 2011). “A defendant may
   waive his statutory right to appeal as part of a valid plea agreement, provided
   (1) his or her waiver is knowing and voluntary, and (2) the waiver applies to
   the circumstances at hand, based on the plain language of the agreement.”
   Id. at 781 (quotation marks and citation omitted). While an enforceable
   appeal waiver does not deprive this court of jurisdiction, the Government
   may be entitled to dismissal of an appeal based on contractual grounds. See
   United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230–31 & n.5 (5th Cir. 2006).
          The record shows that Williams was properly admonished regarding
   his plea agreement and the appeal waiver. He knew he had a right to appeal
   and would be giving up that right as part of his plea agreement, and he

                                          2
Case: 22-40185      Document: 00516614053           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/18/2023

                                     No. 22-40185

   understood the consequences of the waiver. See Jacobs, 635 F.3d at 781.
   Williams has not shown that the court’s failure to provide advance notice
   (which he does not define) of its intent to impose the variance rendered the
   waiver invalid, and the record belies his claim that the district court failed to
   provide reasons justifying the variance.
          Additionally, the appeal waiver “applies to the circumstances at hand,
   based on the plain language of the agreement.” Id. The waiver contains no
   exception for a sentence imposed above or outside of the Guidelines range,
   and the 180-month sentence, although a significant variance, did not exceed
   the 20-year statutory maximum. While Williams might wish the waiver had
   been worded differently, “an agreement should be enforced as written,
   without regard to whether the parties contracted wisely.” Jacobs, 635 F.3d
   at 783 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Because the waiver is knowing and voluntary and applies to
   Williams’s sentencing challenges based on the plain language of the plea
   agreement, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as barred by the
   appeal waiver is GRANTED. See id. 781–83. The appeal is DISMISSED.

                                          3