United States v. Brown ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60354 Document: 00516738117 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-60354 May 4, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Marvin Temple Brown,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:21-CR-50-4
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Marvin Temple Brown appeals the 240-month sentence he received
after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin and a mixture
or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. Brown
challenges the district court’s sentence enhancements for possession of
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60354 Document: 00516738117 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-60354
firearms during the offense and for his role as a manager or supervisor, the
drug quantity calculation, and the denial of a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal or,
alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the appeal waiver in Brown’s
plea agreement.
We review whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal de novo. United
States v. Winchel, 896 F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir. 2018). The record
demonstrates that Brown’s appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. See
United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005). Under the
plain language of the waiver, his arguments challenging his sentence have
been waived. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005); see
also United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 955-56 (5th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is
GRANTED, and its alternative motion for summary affirmance is
DENIED.
2