The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-50354•Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Rafael Mondragon Garcia
07-50354Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitFeb 20, 2008
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-50354
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAFAEL MONDRAGON GARCIA
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:06-CR-268-2
Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rafael Mondragon Garcia appeals from his conviction by guilty plea of
distribution of methamphetamine. He contends that the district court erred by
failing to adjust his offense level downward for acceptance of responsibility and
pursuant to the safety-valve provision of the Sentencing Guidelines and that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The Government argues
that Mondragon Garcia waived his right to appeal his guidelines sentencing
issues.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 20, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 07-50354
2
The Government is correct. Mondragon Garcia knowingly and voluntarily
waived his appeal of the guidelines sentencing issues he seeks to raise on appeal.
See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 518 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992). The record is
insufficiently developed for this court to determine Mondragon Garcia’s
contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore do not
consider that contention. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05
(2003).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.