United States v. Marquez ( 2023 )

Case: 22-51015 Document: 00516704893 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-51015
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ April 7, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Robert Marquez, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CR-1816-1
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Robert Marquez, Jr., appeals his 57-month sentence for the
importation of five kilograms or more of cocaine and aiding and abetting. He
pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that included, inter alia, a waiver
of his right to appeal. The Government seeks enforcement of the appeal
waiver, and Marquez makes no arguments to the contrary.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51015 Document: 00516704893 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2023
No. 22-51015
We review whether the appeal waiver bars Marquez’s appeal de novo.
See United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Marquez
unambiguously acknowledged that he voluntarily and knowingly waived his
right to appeal his conviction and sentence on any ground in the written plea
agreement as well as during the plea colloquy. Given the explicit
relinquishment of the right to challenge his sentence, the waiver undoubtedly
“applies to the circumstances at hand.” United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542,
544 (5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the record demonstrates that the appeal
waiver is valid and enforceable. See id.DISMISSED. 1
_____________________
1
Counsel for Marquez is CAUTIONED that pursuing an appeal contrary to a
valid waiver and without responding to the Government’s invocation of the waiver is a
needless waste of judicial resources that could result in sanctions. See United States v.
Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1999).
2