United States v. Juan Carlos Trasvina Alvarez

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Juan Carlos Trasvina Alvarez

128 F. App'x 103

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 2005

Docket04-10702; D.C. Docket 03-00258-CR-2-1

StatusUnpublished

This text of 128 F. App'x 103 (United States v. Juan Carlos Trasvina Alvarez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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. Juan Carlos Trasvina Alvarez, 128 F. App'x 103 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

This appeal of Juan Carlos Trasvina Alvarez regarding the propriety of his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for further consideration in the light of United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Alvarez v. United States, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1717, 161 L.Ed.2d 522 (2005). We previously affirmed Alvarez’s sentence. United States v. Alvarez, 125 Fed.Appx. 976 (11th Cir.2004). After reconsideration, we again affirm Alvarez’s conviction and sentence, and we reinstate our previous opinion.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Booker does not change our resolution of this appeal. As we explained before, in his plea agreement, Alvarez agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence. An appeal waiver that is part of a knowing and voluntary plea agreement is enforceable, United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir.1993), and we have held that “the right to appeal a sentence based on Apprendi/Booker grounds can be waived in a plea agreement.” United States v. Rubbo, 396 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir.2005). During Alvarez’s plea colloquy, the district court specifically questioned Alvarez regarding the appeal waiver, and Alvarez confirmed that he understood and agreed voluntarily to it. Alternatively, again as we explained in our previous opinion, Alvarez also did not raise a Booker or Blakely challenge to his sentence in his opening brief. Because Alvarez first raised that issue in his reply brief, the argument was waived. United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297, 1299 n. 1 (11th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir.2004) (per curiam).

After reconsideration, we again affirm and reinstate our previous opinion.

OPINION REINSTATED; AFFIRMED.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

This appeal of Juan Carlos Trasvina Alvarez regarding the propriety of his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for further consideration in the light of United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Alvarez v. United States, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1717, 161 L.Ed.2d 522 (2005). We previously affirmed Alvarez’s sentence. United States v. Alvarez, 125 Fed.Appx. 976 (11th Cir.2004). After reconsideration, we again affirm Alvarez’s conviction and sentence, and we reinstate our previous opinion.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Booker does not change our resolution of this appeal. As we explained before, in his plea agreement, Alvarez agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence. An appeal waiver that is part of a knowing and voluntary plea agreement is enforceable, United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir.1993), and we have held that “the right to appeal a sentence based on Apprendi/Booker grounds can be waived in a plea agreement.” United States v. Rubbo, 396 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir.2005). During Alvarez’s plea colloquy, the district court specifically questioned Alvarez regarding the appeal waiver, and Alvarez confirmed that he understood and agreed voluntarily to it. Alternatively, again as we explained in our previous opinion, Alvarez also did not raise a Booker or Blakely challenge to his sentence in his opening brief. Because Alvarez first raised that issue in his reply brief, the argument was waived. United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297, 1299 n. 1 (11th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir.2004) (per curiam).

After reconsideration, we again affirm and reinstate our previous opinion.

OPINION REINSTATED; AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F. App'x 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-juan-carlos-trasvina-alvarez-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack