United States v. Moreno ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-20681
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    LUIS MORENO,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-95-CR-142-14
    --------------------
    July 25, 2002
    Before JONES, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:1
    Luis Moreno appeals from his conviction of drug-trafficking
    and money-laundering conspiracies. Moreno argues that the district
    court’s proceedings were void ab initio because the district court
    did not make an express, oral, adjudication of guilt or acceptance
    of Moreno’s plea agreement.    Moreno persistently and mistakenly
    relies on Crain v. United States, 
    162 U.S. 625
    (1896), a case that
    was clearly overruled by Garland v. Washington, 
    232 U.S. 642
    (1914), with regard to the issue for which Moreno cites it.
    1
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    Although the district court did not expressly and precisely state
    that the court was accepting the plea and finding the defendant
    guilty, the record shows that there could have been no plausible
    doubt as to whether Moreno’s plea had been accepted and his guilt
    adjudicated.   Because Moreno did not object to the alleged error,
    his claim is reviewed for plain error, and he has shown none.         See
    United States v. Vonn, 
    122 S. Ct. 1043
    , 1048 (2002).             Moreno’s
    contention that the district court failed to expressly accept his
    plea agreement likewise fails plain-error review because Moreno
    received the bargained-for dismissal of other counts.          See United
    States v. Morales-Sosa, 
    191 F.3d 586
    , 588 (5th Cir. 1999).
    Moreno also contends that his life sentence is improper under
    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000).             The Government
    contends that Moreno waived his Apprendi contention by waiving his
    right to appeal his sentence and that Moreno’s Apprendi contention
    is unavailing on its merits.       Moreno’s waiver of any appeal of his
    sentence is valid.    See United States v. Robinson, 
    187 F.3d 516
    ,
    518 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Portillo, 
    18 F.3d 290
    , 292
    (5th Cir. 1994).     Even without it, Moreno’s appeal has no merit.
    There was no Apprendi violation in the case.         Moreno’s indictment
    alleged that he had conspired to possess with intent to distribute
    1,000 or   more   kilograms   of   marijuana,   an   offense   carrying   a
    statutory maximum penalty of life imprisonment.            21 U.S.C. §§
    841(b)(1)(A), 846.    Moreno’s life sentence was within that range.
    See United States v. Keith, 
    230 F.3d 784
    , 787 (5th Cir. 2000),
    cert. denied, 
    531 U.S. 1182
    (2001).
    2
    AFFIRMED.
    3