United States v. Daughtry

Case: 22-40764 Document: 00516859695 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
____________
August 16, 2023
No. 22-40764 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jake Ellis Daughtry,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:20-CR-55-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jake Ellis Daughtry pleaded guilty to conspiracy to use the internet to
distribute a date rape drug—1,4-butanediol—to persons that he knew or had
reasonable cause to believe were not authorized purchasers, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(g) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. He now appeals from that judgment
and challenges his conviction.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40764 Document: 00516859695 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2023
No. 22-40764
First, Daughtry challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. Although Daughtry’s plea agreement contained an
appeal waiver, the Government does not seek to enforce the waiver with
respect to this specific argument. Accordingly, our review of the district
court’s denial of the withdrawal motion is for an abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1013-14 (5th Cir. 2019).
The record reflects that Daughtry was apprised of the elements of the
offense of conviction and that he understood the nature of the charges against
him, the consequences of the plea, and the nature of the constitutional
protections he waived by pleading guilty. See United States v. Urias-Marrufo,
744 F.3d 361, 366 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 559
(5th Cir. 2002). His arguments to the contrary based on Ruan v. United
States, 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022), fail to show that his guilty plea was not
knowing and voluntary, and he otherwise fails to establish that the district
court erred or abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1013-14; United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339,
343-44 (5th Cir. 1984).
Second, based on various challenges to § 841(g), Daughtry contends
that the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea. The Government
does assert Daughtry’s appeal waiver as to these arguments, and we are
persuaded that the waiver is valid and enforceable as to them. See United
States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 781-82 (5th Cir. 2011). Daughtry’s attempt to
avoid the effect of the appeal waiver by characterizing the arguments as
jurisdictional is misplaced. See United States v. Scruggs, 714 F.3d 258, 262-63
(5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 2002).
Lastly, Daughtry contends that the district court erred in denying his
motion to obtain transcripts of grand jury proceedings. This claim was
2
Case: 22-40764 Document: 00516859695 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2023
No. 22-40764
waived at the very least by his unconditional guilty plea. See United States v.
Daughenbaugh, 549 F.3d 1010, 1012 (5th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. His
motion to allow attachments to his initial brief is DENIED as unnecessary.
3