United States v. David Orozco ( 2018 )

Case: 17-50689 Document: 00514417488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-50689 FILED
Summary Calendar April 5, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DAVID OROZCO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-CR-1838-4
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
David Orozco appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five grams or more of pure
methamphetamine. Orozco argues that the plea agreement is invalid because
it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. In particular, he asserts
that the plea agreement is procedurally unconscionable because the parties
were in an unequal bargaining position during the plea negotiation process.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-50689 Document: 00514417488 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2018
No. 17-50689
He further contends that the plea agreement is substantively unconscionable
because it is “grossly one sided.” Orozco maintains that he gave up numerous
important rights and received “very little, if anything” in return. He thus
argues that the plea agreement’s appellate waiver provision is unenforceable.
Orozco also asserts that his 96-month, within-guidelines sentence was
substantively unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Because Orozco did not challenge the validity of the plea agreement in
the district court or attempt to withdraw his plea on grounds that the plea
agreement was unconscionable, we review his claims under the plain error
standard. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002). Our review of
the plea agreement reveals no clear or obvious error with respect to Orozco’s
unconscionability arguments. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009). He offers no other challenge to the waiver’s validity or its application.
Thus, the waiver bars Orozco’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of
his sentence.
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
2