United States v. Garcia ( 2023 )

Case: 22-11043 Document: 00516834655 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-11043
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ July 26, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Salvador Sanchez Garcia,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CR-118-2
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Salvador Sanchez Garcia pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and was sentenced to
140 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In the
plea agreement, Sanchez Garcia waived his right to appeal and to collaterally
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11043 Document: 00516834655 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
No. 22-11043
challenge his conviction and sentence but preserved the right to, inter alia,
challenge the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the appeal waiver.
On appeal, Sanchez Garcia argues that the magistrate judge’s failure
to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N) rendered his
guilty plea void as unknowing and involuntary. Sanchez Garcia did not object
to the court’s colloquy, therefore we review for plain error. See United States
v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Under that standard, Sanchez Garcia must
“demonstrate that his substantial rights were affected by the [court]’s alleged
failure to explain the terms of the appeal waiver adequately.” United States
v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397, 412 (5th Cir. 2011). Even if the error is plain, we may
only vacate if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
Rule 11 specifically requires that the court, before it accepts a plea of
guilty, “inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant
understands . . . the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right
to appeal or collaterally attack the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(b)(1)(N). However, the court is not required to “specifically admonish[]
[the defendant] concerning the waiver of appeal.” United States v. Portillo,
18 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 1994). Rather, the court need only confirm that
the defendant “read the agreement, understood its contents, and wished to
plead guilty.” Id.; see United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.
2005) (“Because [the defendant] indicated that he had read and understood
the plea agreement, which includes an explicit, unambiguous waiver of
appeal, the waiver was both knowing and voluntary.”).
Here, the fully executed, valid plea agreement contained a clearly
written, unambiguous waiver-of-appeal provision, and the magistrate judge
confirmed that Sanchez Garcia had read that provision, discussed it with his
2
Case: 22-11043 Document: 00516834655 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
No. 22-11043
attorney, and understood its terms. “Nowhere in the record is there any
indication that [Sanchez Garcia] did not understand or was confused by the
waiver-of-appeal provision,” and therefore he “will be held to the bargain to
which he agreed,” notwithstanding the absence of a recitation of the terms
of the waiver during the plea colloquy. Portillo, 18 F.3d at 292-93.
Accordingly, Sanchez Garcia has not demonstrated plain error. See Oliver,
630 F.3d at 412; see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
AFFIRMED.
3