United States v. Bazley ( 2022 )

Case: 22-30343 Document: 00516541962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-30343 November 10, 2022
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jamal Bazley,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:20-CR-58-1
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jamal Bazley pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm
and was sentenced within the guidelines range to an 80-month term of
imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On
appeal, Bazley contests the application of the enhancement for possession of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-30343 Document: 00516541962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2022
No. 22-30343
a firearm in connection with another felony offense under U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
Bazley pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement wherein he waived the
right to appeal his conviction and sentence, reserving only his right to bring
a direct appeal of a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum and
the right to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The
Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver in Bazley’s plea agreement.
We review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. United
States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Our review of the record
shows that Bazley’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v.
Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290,
292–93 (5th Cir. 1994). The waiver plainly applies to his challenge to the
application of a sentencing enhancement. See Bond, 414 F.3d at 544. Because
there is no argument that Bazley’s sentence exceeds the statutory maximum
or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the exceptions to the
waiver do not apply. See United States v. Cortez, 413 F.3d 502, 503 (5th Cir.
2005). Thus, the waiver precludes consideration of Bazley’s challenge. See
United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
2