United States v. Edward Bridges ( 2020 )

Case: 20-60369 Document: 00515670946 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-60369 December 11, 2020
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Edward Corneilus Bridges, also known as Pooh,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:18-CR-53-1
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Edward Corneilus Bridges appeals his 250-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
500 grams or more of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in
relation to a drug trafficking crime. He raises arguments related to the district
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60369 Document: 00515670946 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
No. 20-60369
court’s calculation of his guidelines range. The Government moves to
dismiss or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the appeal waiver
in Bridges’s plea agreement. We GRANT the Government’s motion to
dismiss.
Bridges pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement. As part
of the plea agreement, Bridges waived his right to appeal his conviction and
sentence. Bridges and his attorney signed the plea agreement and a
supplement to the plea agreement, which stated that Bridges had read and
understood both documents, that counsel explained the agreement, and that
Bridges voluntarily agreed to its terms. The district court sentenced him to a
total of 250 months in prison. On appeal, Bridges challenges his sentence,
arguing that it is procedurally unreasonable. The Government filed a motion
to dismiss Bridges’s appeal, or alternatively, for summary affirmance. The
Government asserts that Bridges’s waiver of his right to appeal is valid,
enforceable, and applicable to the issues Bridges raises on appeal.
This court reviews the enforceability of an appeal waiver de novo.
United States v. Winchel, 896 F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2018). A defendant may
waive his statutory right to appeal as part of a valid plea agreement. United
States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2006). We conduct a two-step test
in order to determine whether an appellant has waived their right to appeal a
sentence, asking “(1) whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary and (2)
whether the waiver applies to the circumstances at hand, based on the plain
language of the agreement.” United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th
Cir. 2005). Under this test, Bridges has waived his appeal. Bridges does not
allege, and nothing in the record suggests, that his waiver was not knowing
and voluntary. The plain language of the waiver agreement, which expressly
waives the right to appeal the sentence and the manner in which it was
imposed, is clearly applicable to the circumstances at hand.
2
Case: 20-60369 Document: 00515670946 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
No. 20-60369
Bridges argues that the right to challenge a sentence should not be
waivable. However, it is well-settled that a defendant may waive their right
to appeal as part of a valid plea agreement. See U.S. v. Melancon, 972 F.2d
566, 567 (5th Cir. 1992). Bridges also argues that appeal waivers are unfair
contracts of adhesion. Yet the waiver of the right to appeal, without more,
does not render a plea agreement an unconscionable contract of adhesion. See
United States v. Cobos, 255 F. App’x 835, 837 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).
Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is
GRANTED, and its alternative motion for summary affirmance is
DENIED as moot.
3