U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2020

United States v. John Baxter

United States v. John Baxter
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided March 24, 2020

United States v. John Baxter

Opinion

Case: 19-60276 Document: 00515356692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-60276 FILED Summary Calendar March 24, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHN BAXTER, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:17-CR-23-2

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * John Baxter appeals his below-guidelines sentence after pleading guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. Baxter challenges his sentence as being procedurally unreasonable on the ground that the district court erred in calculating the applicable guidelines sentencing range. Seeking to enforce

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-60276 Document: 00515356692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2020

No. 19-60276 Baxter’s appeal waiver, the Government moves to dismiss the appeal and alternatively moves for summary affirmance.

We review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Based on our review of the record, Baxter knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea agreement, including the appeal waiver, which is enforceable and bars his appeal. See id.; United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 739 (5th Cir. 2014). Baxter’s argument that his appeal waiver was unknowing because he agreed to it without knowledge of his guidelines sentencing range is unavailing. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992). We GRANT the Government’s motion to dismiss, and we DENY its alternative motion for summary affirmance as unnecessary.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.