USA v. Julio Rodriguez, No. 12-50824 (5th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 12-50824 Document: 00512694005 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 12-50824 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 10, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JULIO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CR-2114 Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Julio Rodriguez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment, the mandatory minimum sentence, and five years of supervised release. Rodriguez contends that he was entitled to a downward departure, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4, based on his alcohol abuse, and that the district court mistakenly believed that it could not depart 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 12-50824 Document: 00512694005 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2014 No. 12-50824 on that basis. The Government responds that his claims of error are barred by his appeal waiver. Rodriguez does not acknowledge the existence of the appeal waiver much less challenge its validity on appeal. A review of the record indicates that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence, see United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994), and that his claims of error regarding his sentence are barred by the appeal waiver. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. Counsel is WARNED that the filing of an appeal contrary to a valid appeal waiver is a needless waste of resources and could result in sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 224 (5th Cir. 1999). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.