United States v. Khanh Duy Ha

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Khanh Duy Ha

209 F. App'x 399

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 2006

Docket05-21005, 05-21083

StatusUnpublished

This text of 209 F. App'x 399 (United States v. Khanh Duy Ha) 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. Khanh Duy Ha, 209 F. App'x 399 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Khanh Duy Ha appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ecstasy. Ha argues that the district court clearly erred in en *400 hancing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) and that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary when the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to move for a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 departure.

We first address Ha’s breach argument, which we review de novo. See United States v. Saling, 205 F.3d 764, 766 (5th Cir.2000). In Ha’s plea agreement, the Government retained sole discretion to move for a § 5K1.1 departure, and Ha does not argue that the Government’s refusal to do so was based on an unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Garcia-Bonilla, 11 F.3d 45, 46 (5th Cir.1993). Furthermore, the Government’s conduct was not inconsistent with the parties’ reasonable understanding of the agreement. See United States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1295 (5th Cir.1994). In light of the foregoing, Ha has not borne his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Government breached the plea agreement. See United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir.1996).

Ha’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, which the Government seeks to enforce and which the record establishes was entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir.1999). Therefore, Ha’s challenge to the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement is barred by his appeal waiver and is dismissed. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992).

DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *400 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: *

Khanh Duy Ha appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ecstasy. Ha argues that the district court clearly erred in en *400 hancing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) and that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary when the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to move for a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 departure.

We first address Ha’s breach argument, which we review de novo. See United States v. Saling, 205 F.3d 764, 766 (5th Cir.2000). In Ha’s plea agreement, the Government retained sole discretion to move for a § 5K1.1 departure, and Ha does not argue that the Government’s refusal to do so was based on an unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Garcia-Bonilla, 11 F.3d 45, 46 (5th Cir.1993). Furthermore, the Government’s conduct was not inconsistent with the parties’ reasonable understanding of the agreement. See United States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1295 (5th Cir.1994). In light of the foregoing, Ha has not borne his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Government breached the plea agreement. See United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir.1996).

Ha’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, which the Government seeks to enforce and which the record establishes was entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir.1999). Therefore, Ha’s challenge to the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement is barred by his appeal waiver and is dismissed. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992).

DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *400 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F. App'x 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-khanh-duy-ha-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack