United States v. Renchie ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60524 Document: 00515845398 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-60524 May 3, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Rodney Renchie,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:19-CR-35-2
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Rodney Renchie pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing
methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment and
five years of supervised release. On appeal, Renchie argues that the district
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60524 Document: 00515845398 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2021
No. 20-60524
court erred by applying U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5), which provides for a two-
level enhancement for an offense involving imported methamphetamine.
Relying on the appeal waiver provision in Renchie’s plea agreement, the
Government moves to dismiss the appeal. Renchie has indicated that he
opposes the motion, but he has not filed a response.
We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v.
Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). The waiver provision in
Renchie’s plea agreement waived his right to appeal the sentence on any
ground whatsoever, except for ineffective assistance of counsel. The record
shows that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, as Renchie knew he had
the right to appeal and that he was giving up that right in the plea agreement.
See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Renchie’s
opening brief neither mentions the waiver nor explains why the appeal is
nevertheless being brought. Once the Government moved to dismiss the
appeal based on the appeal waiver, Renchie should have conceded the point
or sought to show that the appeal concerned issues that were outside of the
terms of the waiver. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir.
2006).
Because the plain language of the waiver applies to his sentencing
claim, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the Government’s
alternative motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. See United States
v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544, 546 (5th Cir. 2005). Counsel for Renchie is
CAUTIONED that pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver and
without responding to the Government’s invocation of the waiver is a
needless waste of judicial resources that could result in sanctions. See United
States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1999).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2