United States v. S'ade Tyler , 611 F. App'x 241 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-60718      Document: 00513145794         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/07/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    No. 14-60718
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    c/w No. 14-60719                           August 7, 2015
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    S’ADE TYLER,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 3:13-CR-10-1
    USDC No. 3:13-CR-8-6
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    S’ade Tyler challenges the sentences imposed upon her guilty plea
    convictions of wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States
    Government. She argues that the district court erroneously determined the
    amount of restitution in Case No. 3:13-CR-8-6 because the restitution amount
    included intended, but not actual, loss amounts. She also argues that the
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 14-60718    Document: 00513145794   Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/07/2015
    No. 14-60718
    c/w No. 14-60719
    district court erred by denying the Government’s motion for a downward
    departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 without considering the nature or
    extent of Tyler’s cooperation. Relying on the appellate waiver in the plea
    agreement, the Government seeks dismissal of the appeal or, alternatively,
    summary affirmance.
    We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v.
    Baymon, 
    312 F.3d 725
    , 727 (5th Cir. 2002). The waiver provision broadly
    waived Tyler’s right to appeal her sentence. She did not reserve any appeal
    rights. The record of her rearraignment shows that the waiver was knowing
    and voluntary, as Tyler knew she had the right to appeal and that she was
    giving up that right in the plea agreement. See United States v. Portillo, 
    18 F.3d 290
    , 292 (5th Cir. 1994).   Because the plain language of the waiver
    provision applies to Tyler’s challenge to her sentences, we will enforce the
    waiver and DISMISS the appeal. See United States v. Bond, 
    414 F.3d 542
    , 544,
    546 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and
    its alternative motion for summary affirmance is DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-60719

Citation Numbers: 611 F. App'x 241

Filed Date: 8/7/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023