United States v. Robert Hart, III , 570 F. App'x 392 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-30583 Document: 00512652147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-30583
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 4, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROBERT CHARLES HART, III,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:10-CR-205-1
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Robert Charles Hart, III, pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to being an accessory after the fact to a carjacking that resulted in
two murders and the distribution of marijuana. He was sentenced to a total of
204 months in prison and three years of supervised release. As part of his plea
agreement, Hart waived his right to directly appeal his conviction and sentence
on any ground except a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-30583 Document: 00512652147 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2014
No. 13-30583
On appeal, Hart attacks his sentence, arguing that the district court
misinterpreted and misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines and imposed an
unreasonable sentence. The Government seeks the enforcement of the appeal
waiver contained in the plea agreement and contends that the appeal must be
dismissed. In the alternative, the Government argues that the district court
committed no sentencing error.
In his opening brief, Hart does not challenge, or even address, the
validity of the appeal waiver, and he has not filed a reply brief to respond to
the Government’s waiver argument. The record reflects that Hart knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence except in limited
circumstances not present in the instant appeal. See United States v.
McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Hart’s appeal of his
sentence is clearly barred by the valid waiver, the appeal is dismissed. See
United States v. Walters, 732 F.3d 489, 491 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.
Ct. 1349 (2014). We caution defense counsel that pursuing an appeal contrary
to a valid waiver the Government seeks to enforce is a needless waste of
resources and could result in sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d
222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1999).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2