United States v. Metsinger ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60553 Document: 00516819499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-60553 July 13, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Daniel Ray Metsinger,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:21-CR-77-1
______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Daniel Ray Metsinger pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex
offender. Metsinger appeals, challenging four supervised release conditions.
In response, the Government has filed a motion to dismiss Metsinger’s
appeal based on the appellate waiver in his plea agreement and, alternatively,
for summary affirmance.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60553 Document: 00516819499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2023
No. 22-60553
Metsinger concedes that his appellate waiver, if enforceable, would
bar this appeal. However, Metsinger argues that the appellate waiver is
unenforceable because the Government breached the plea agreement by
recommending a supervised release condition not found within the
Sentencing Guidelines.
We review appeal waivers de novo. See United States v. Jacobs, 635
F.3d 778, 780-81 (5th Cir. 2011). “[S]ummary disposition is proper” when
“the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that
there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where,
as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp.,
Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Dismissal is the appropriate
remedy for enforcement of an appellate waiver. See United States v. Story,
439 F.3d 226, 230-31 & n.5 (5th Cir. 2006). “This court applies general
principles of contract law in interpreting the terms of a plea agreement.”
United States v. Long, 722 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 2013). We thus analyze the
plain language of the plea agreement on its face. Id.Metsinger’s plea agreement did not prohibit the Government from
recommending supervised release conditions beyond those set forth in the
Guidelines. He has, therefore, failed to demonstrate a breach, and his
appellate waiver is enforceable.
The Government’s motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED and
the appeal is DISMISSED. The alternative motion for summary
affirmance is DENIED.
2