Case: 25-60088 Document: 65-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-60088 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ September 18, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Stokes Wells, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:21-CR-17-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Stokes Wells appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. He raises four claims: (1) the appellate waiver provision in the plea agreement does not preclude relief; (2) the district court erred in applying a four-level leadership enhancement to his base offense _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-60088 Document: 65-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2025

No. 25-60088

level; (3) the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity attributable to him; and (4) his 300-month sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Seeking to enforce Smith’s appeal waiver, the Government moves to dismiss the appeal and alternatively moves for summary affirmance.

We review the enforceability of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v. Madrid, 978 F.3d 201, 204 (5th Cir. 2020). To determine whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal, we conduct a two-step inquiry, first examining “whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary,” and then considering “whether the waiver applies to the circumstances at hand, based on the plain language of the agreement.” United States v. Kelly, 915 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The record confirms that both conditions are met here. Wells’s challenges to the waiver are unavailing. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for summary affirmance is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.