United States v. Williams ( 2023 )

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