United States v. Rowell Flora ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 19-51017      Document: 00515557058         Page: 1    Date Filed: 09/09/2020
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                           United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-51017                    September 9, 2020
    Summary Calendar                     Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Rowell Flora, also known as Caranto Rowell,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:17-CR-641-1
    Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Rowell Flora appeals his guilty plea convictions and two consecutive
    240-month sentences for distribution and receipt of child pornography.
    Flora argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-51017         Document: 00515557058             Page: 2      Date Filed: 09/09/2020
    No. 19-51017
    indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a supposed violation
    of 18 U.S.C. § 1385, known as the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA).
    A valid, enforceable appeal waiver does not bar a defendant from
    arguing on appeal that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his case,
    because subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. See United States v.
    Cotton, 
    535 U.S. 625
    , 630 (2002). Such arguments are reviewed de novo. See
    United States v. Isgar, 
    739 F.3d 829
    , 838 (5th Cir. 2014). A violation of the
    PCA does not divest a district court of subject matter jurisdiction, so we need
    not consider whether such a violation occurred. See United States v. Hartley,
    
    796 F.2d 112
    , 114-15 (5th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wolffs, 
    594 F.2d 77
    , 85
    (5th Cir. 1979). In the instant case, the indictment charged Flora with
    offenses against the United States in language similar to that used by the
    relevant statutes. See 18 U.S.C. § 371; 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); 18 U.S.C. §
    2252A(a)(2), (a)(5)(B). Thus, the district court had jurisdiction over Flora’s
    case. See 
    Isgar, 739 F.3d at 838
    ; 18 U.S.C. § 3231. 1
    Flora also seeks to challenge the procedural and substantive
    reasonableness of his aggregate 480-month sentence.                       Although he
    acknowledges that he waived the right to appeal his sentence in his plea
    agreement, he contends that the appeal-waiver provision is unenforceable
    because he was never advised of the district court’s statutory authority to
    impose consecutive sentences. The Government responds that the appeal-
    waiver provision is valid and seeks its enforcement.
    The record reflects that Flora was advised at rearraignment that he
    had a right to appeal his convictions and sentences and that he was waiving
    1
    Further, the district court’s jurisdiction was not precluded by a military court’s
    concurrent jurisdiction. See United States v. Hodge, 
    487 F.2d 945
    , 946 (5th Cir. 1973) (per
    curiam).
    2
    Case: 19-51017       Document: 00515557058            Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/09/2020
    No. 19-51017
    the right to appeal as part of his plea agreement. See United States v.
    McKinney, 
    406 F.3d 744
    , 746 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2005). The fact that Flora was
    not specifically advised at that time of the district court’s statutory authority
    to run his sentences consecutively, 2 does not render his appeal waiver
    unenforceable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); United States v. Hernandez, 
    234 F.3d 252
    , 256 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Flora’s challenges to his sentences are
    barred by the appeal waiver in his agreement. See United States v. Bond, 
    414 F.3d 542
    , 544 (5th Cir. 2005); 
    McKinney, 406 F.3d at 746
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    We note that he was advised several times thereafter of the potential of
    consecutive sentences and never raised any objections or sought to withdraw his plea.
    3