United States v. Longoria

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10339
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Leondro Longoria,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:19-CR-23-2

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Leondro Longoria pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement,
to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and he was sentenced
to 57 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In the

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 24, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-10339 Document: 00515650919 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2020

No. 20-10339
2
plea agreement, Longoria waived his rights to appeal from his conviction and
sentence or to contest the conviction and sentence in any collateral
proceeding, with certain limited exceptions.
On appeal, Longoria argues for the first time that his guilty plea and
appeal waiver are void because the district court did not comply with Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(I) and (b)(1)(N), which require the court
to ensure, before it accepts a guilty plea, that the defendant understands any
mandatory minimum penalty and the terms of any appellate-waiver
provision, respectively. Because Longoria did not object in the district court,
we review for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002).
The record reflects that the Rule 11 plea colloquy was sufficient in
these respects and that the guilty plea and waiver were knowing and
voluntary. First, the statute of conviction carried no mandatory minimum
sentence. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Therefore, the magistrate judge was
not required to offer any advice under Rule 11(b)(1)(I), and Longoria has
failed to show any error, much less a clear or obvious one. See United States
v. Puckett, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Second, the magistrate judge confirmed
that Longoria read and understood the plea agreement containing the appeal
waiver, and Longoria did not raise questions about its terms. Longoria agreed
that he waived his right to appeal except under the “certain limited
circumstances” delineated in the plea agreement he had signed. And
Longoria indicated he understood the agreement as a whole and entered into
it voluntarily and freely. Accordingly, he has not shown any error with the
Rule 11 colloquy. See United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754-55 (5th Cir.
2014).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case: 20-10339 Document: 00515650919 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2020