United States v. Isabel Munoz ( 2017 )

Case: 16-50303 Document: 00513908007 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-50303 FILED
Summary Calendar March 13, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ISABEL MUNOZ, also known as Chavel, also known as Chavel Munoz, also
known as Isabel Munoz, Jr., also known as Chubby Munoz, also known as
Isabel Chavel,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:13-CR-316-2
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Isabel Munoz appeals his guilty plea conviction and 150-month sentence
of imprisonment for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams
or more of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846.
Reviewing for plain error, we affirm. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
129, 135 (2009).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50303 Document: 00513908007 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2017
No. 16-50303
We reject the contention that Munoz’s plea agreement and guilty plea
were not made knowingly and voluntarily and are therefore invalid. Even
viewed most favorably to Munoz, the record does not show a conspicuous or
readily apparent district court error in accepting his guilty plea but instead
shows that this claim is at least subject to reasonable dispute. See Puckett, 556
U.S. at 135; United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377-78 (5th Cir. 2009); United
States v. Dupre, 117 F.3d 810, 817 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, there can be no
plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Ellis, 564 F.3d at 377-78. Moreover,
even if there was an error beyond reasonable dispute, Munoz does not “show a
reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the
[guilty] plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004).
Thus, he has not shown that his substantial rights were affected, and he
consequently fails to satisfy the plain error standard of review. See Puckett,
556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en
banc).
We pretermit the question whether the appeal waiver in the plea
agreement is valid. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir.
2008); see also United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 2011). Even
if the waiver were to fall, Munoz has abandoned any claim of district court
error in the calculation and selection of his sentence by failing to brief it. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
AFFIRMED.
2