United States v. Jose Quintanilla , 699 F. App'x 390 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-20555 Document: 00514209720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-20555 FILED
Summary Calendar October 25, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSE WILLIAM QUINTANILLA, also known as Pablo, also known as Ronko,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:14-CR-497-2
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose William Quintanilla appeals following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiring in the sex trafficking of children by force and coercion in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). He argues that the district court’s refusal to hear his
testimony at the sentencing hearing violated the Due Process Clause, Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a), and this court’s precedents.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 16-20555 Document: 00514209720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2017
No. 16-20555
Quintanilla entered his plea in accordance with a written plea
agreement wherein he waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence,
except with the respect to his right to appeal a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel. The Government seeks to enforce the waiver. Our review whether
the waiver provision bars the instant appeal is de novo. United States v.
Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 780-81 (5th Cir. 2011). We construe the plea agreement
“like a contract, seeking to determine the defendant’s reasonable
understanding of the agreement and construing any ambiguity against the
Government.” United States v. Farias, 469 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2006)
(footnote omitted).
We need not reach whether the waiver encompasses Quintanilla’s
challenge to the conduct of the sentencing hearing. Rather, our review of the
record satisfies us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
declining to hear testimony. See United States v. Jackson, 453 F.3d 302, 305
(5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Henderson, 19 F.3d 917, 927 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
2