United States v. Leal ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10790 Document: 00515794014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 24, 2021
No. 20-10790 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jonathan Aaron Leal,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-238-1
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Jonathan Aaron Leal pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. The district court
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10790 Document: 00515794014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2021
No. 20-10790
sentenced Leal below the guidelines range to 270 months of imprisonment.
He now appeals his sentence.
While the Government asserts that Leal’s appeal is barred by the
appeal waiver in his plea agreement, Leal argues that he is entitled to appeal
because the district court imposed a sentence above the statutory maximum
punishment and imposed an illegal sentence. “This court reviews de novo
whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal.” United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d
752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014).
Leal’s sentence did not exceed the 40-year statutory maximum, and
there is no language in the appeal waiver that would suggest that “a sentence
exceeding the statutory maximum punishment” should have a definition
beyond its ordinary and natural meaning. See United States v. Cortez, 413 F.3d
502, 503 (5th Cir. 2005); see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Moreover, we
decline to consider an appeal waiver exception for challenging an illegal
sentence. See United States v. Barnes, 953 F.3d 383, 388-89 & n.11 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 438 (2020); Keele, 755 F.3d at 756-57.
Under the plain language of the appeal waiver provision, Leal waived
the right to appeal his sentence. He does not contend that the appeal waiver
was unknowing or involuntary, and his claim of sentencing error does not fall
within any exceptions to the appeal waiver. Thus, Leal’s appeal waiver
clearly bars his remaining claims. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542,
544 (5th Cir. 2005). The appeal is DISMISSED.
2