United States v. Jose Quintanilla
This text of 699 F. App'x 390 (United States v. Jose Quintanilla) 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.
Opinion
Jose William Quintanilla appeals following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiring in the sex trafficking of children by force and coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). He argues that the district court’s refusal to hear his testimony at the sentencing hearing violated the Due Process Clause, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, U.S.S.G, § 6A1.3(a), and this court’s precedents.
Quintanilla entered his plea in accordance with a written plea agreement wherein he waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except with the respect to his right to appeal a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government seeks to enforce the waiver. Our review whether the waiver provision bars the instant appeal is de novo. United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 780-81 (5th Cir. 2011). We construe the plea agreement “like a contract, seeking to determine the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement and construing any ambiguity against the Government.” United States v. Farias, 469 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2006) (footnote omitted).
We need not reach whether the waiver encompasses Quintanilla’s challenge to the conduct of the sentencing hearing. Rather, our review of the record satisfies us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hear testimony. See United States v. Jackson, 453 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Henderson, 19 F.3d 917, 927 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
699 F. App'x 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-quintanilla-ca5-2017.