United States v. Aloin Benitez-Mendoza

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Aloin Benitez-Mendoza

667 F. App'x 846

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 2016

Docket16-60048 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 846 (United States v. Aloin Benitez-Mendoza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Aloin Benitez-Mendoza, 667 F. App'x 846 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Aloin Benitez-Mendoza appeals his 84-month sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appeal waiver or, in the alternative, for a summary affirmance. Benitez-Mendoza responds that his appeal waiver should not be enforced because it is invalid.

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Burns, 433 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2005). Benitez-Mendoza’s signed plea agreement and the rearraignment transcript show that he freely and knowingly pleaded guilty and waived his appellate rights. See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Guerra, 94 F.3d 989, 995 (5th Cir. 1996). Benitez-Mendoza’s argument that we should not enforce the agreement because it is prospective is unavailing. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Mata-Ramirez, 562 Fed.Appx. 234, 235 (5th Cir. 2014). Likewise, our precedent rejects his argument that his waiver was not voluntary because of the gross disparity in bargaining power between a defendant and the Government. See United States v. Cobos, 255 Fed.Appx. 835, 837 (5th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 729 (5th Cir. 2002) (upholding provision waiving right to appeal on any grounds). Last, we have no reason to grant his request that we reconsider our routine acceptance of appeal waivers. See Jacobs v, Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s motion for dismissal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The alternative motion for summary affirmance is DENIED as unnecessary.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Aloin Benitez-Mendoza appeals his 84-month sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appeal waiver or, in the alternative, for a summary affirmance. Benitez-Mendoza responds that his appeal waiver should not be enforced because it is invalid.

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Burns, 433 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2005). Benitez-Mendoza’s signed plea agreement and the rearraignment transcript show that he freely and knowingly pleaded guilty and waived his appellate rights. See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Guerra, 94 F.3d 989, 995 (5th Cir. 1996). Benitez-Mendoza’s argument that we should not enforce the agreement because it is prospective is unavailing. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Mata-Ramirez, 562 Fed.Appx. 234, 235 (5th Cir. 2014). Likewise, our precedent rejects his argument that his waiver was not voluntary because of the gross disparity in bargaining power between a defendant and the Government. See United States v. Cobos, 255 Fed.Appx. 835, 837 (5th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 729 (5th Cir. 2002) (upholding provision waiving right to appeal on any grounds). Last, we have no reason to grant his request that we reconsider our routine acceptance of appeal waivers. See Jacobs v, Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s motion for dismissal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The alternative motion for summary affirmance is DENIED as unnecessary.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-aloin-benitez-mendoza-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack