USA v. Martin Medellin, No. 12-51100 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-51100 Document: 00512444409 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-51100 Summary Calendar November 18, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee v. MARTIN AMADO MEDELLIN, Defendant Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:10-CR-620-2 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Martin Amado Medellin pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. The district court sentenced Medellin to 84 months in prison. On appeal, Medellin argues that in determining his sentence, the district court erred by failing to give him credit for accepting responsibility for his offense. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-51100 Document: 00512444409 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2013 No. 12-51100 The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver-of-appeal provision in the plea agreement. In his written plea agreement, Medellin agreed to waive his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, although he reserved his right to appeal a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum and the right to raise claims based on prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel. The issue raised by Medellin does not fall within the listed exceptions to the appeal waiver. Nothing in the record indicates that his waiver of appeal was not knowing and voluntary. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 47 (5th Cir. 2005). Medellin does not oppose the Government s argument that his appeal is barred by the waiver of appeal provision. Thus, the Government s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. See United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). The Government s alternative motion to extend the time to file its brief is DENIED. AFFIRMED. 2