United States v. Sattler , 186 F. App'x 449 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 20, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 04-11511 Clerk
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRANDON DAVID SATTLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-63-2-L
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brandon David Sattler appeals his sentence following his
guilty plea conviction for bank fraud and aiding and abetting.
Sattler argues that: (1) the district court violated the Ex Post
Facto Clause because it sentenced him using the 2001 United
States Sentencing Guidelines; (2) his sentence was improper under
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); and (3) the
district court erred in making his sentence consecutive to his
sentence in an unrelated state case. However, Sattler knowingly
and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, the Government moves
to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the waiver, and the plain
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-11511
-2-
language of the waiver bars this appeal. See United States v.
Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v.
Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v.
McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005).
Sattler’s argument that the waiver does not bind him because
it was perfected prior to the release of Booker is unavailing.
See United States v. Burns, 433 F.3d 442, 450-51 (5th Cir. 2005).
Sattler’s argument that the waiver does not bar his appeal
because his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence is
foreclosed by United States v. Cortez, 413 F.3d 502, 503 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 502 (2005). Sattler has not
shown that the district court made any arithmetic errors in the
process of applying the Guidelines. Sattler’s argument that he
did not waive the right to appointed counsel on direct appeal
does not alter the validity or enforceability of the waiver.
MOTION DENIED; AFFIRMED.