United States v. Martinez ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10163 Document: 00516915772 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10163
FILED
October 2, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jose Luis Martinez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CR-266-1
______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jose Luis Martinez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a
detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(B)(viii). He was sentenced within the advisory
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10163 Document: 00516915772 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2023
No. 23-10163
guidelines sentencing range to 140 months of imprisonment and a four-year
term of supervised release. Martinez timely appealed.
In his first argument, Martinez contends that his guilty plea was
unknowing and involuntary because the district did not properly admonish
him as to the maximum term of supervised release. This argument, raised
for the first time on appeal, is reviewed only for plain error. See United States
v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 953 (5th Cir. 2013). Martinez cannot show
any error, though, because he was properly admonished that, by statute, he
was exposed to a supervised-release term of not less than four years. See
§ 841(b)(1)(B); see also United States v. Jackson, 559 F.3d 368, 371-72 (5th Cir.
2009) (explaining that, because § 841 does not include any maximum
supervised-release term, it necessarily authorizes a maximum supervised-
release term of life). Martinez’s guilty plea conviction is AFFIRMED.
In his second argument, Martinez challenges the district court’s
calculation of his guidelines sentencing range. However, his plea was entered
pursuant to a written agreement in which he voluntarily waived his right to
appeal except in circumstances not present here. See United States v.
McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d
290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994). The Government has invoked the appeal waiver,
which bars Martinez’s sentencing challenge. See United States v. Story, 439
F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, that portion of the appeal
challenging Martinez’s sentence is DISMISSED. See United States v.
Meredith, 52 F.4th 984, 988 (5th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
2