United States v. Metsinger

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 13, 2023
• Docket: 22-60553
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-60553 Document: 00516819499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 22-60553 July 13, 2023 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Daniel Ray Metsinger,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:21-CR-77-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Daniel Ray Metsinger pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender. Metsinger appeals, challenging four supervised release conditions. In response, the Government has filed a motion to dismiss Metsinger’s appeal based on the appellate waiver in his plea agreement and, alternatively, for summary affirmance.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60553 Document: 00516819499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2023

No. 22-60553

Metsinger concedes that his appellate waiver, if enforceable, would bar this appeal. However, Metsinger argues that the appellate waiver is unenforceable because the Government breached the plea agreement by recommending a supervised release condition not found within the Sentencing Guidelines. We review appeal waivers de novo. See United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 780-81 (5th Cir. 2011). “[S]ummary disposition is proper” when “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Dismissal is the appropriate remedy for enforcement of an appellate waiver. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 & n.5 (5th Cir. 2006). “This court applies general principles of contract law in interpreting the terms of a plea agreement.” United States v. Long, 722 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 2013). We thus analyze the plain language of the plea agreement on its face. Id. Metsinger’s plea agreement did not prohibit the Government from recommending supervised release conditions beyond those set forth in the Guidelines. He has, therefore, failed to demonstrate a breach, and his appellate waiver is enforceable. The Government’s motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED. The alternative motion for summary affirmance is DENIED.