United States v. Aragones

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-51134
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Bernadette Michelle Aragones, also known as Bernadette
Michelle Aragones, also known as Bernadette Michelle
Aragones-Rodriguez,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:19-CR-169-1

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Bernadette Michelle Aragones pleaded guilty to possession with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and was
sentenced to 180 months in prison, the mandatory minimum and effective

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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
December 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-51134 Document: 00515686223 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2020

No. 19-51134
2
guidelines range, based on a prior conviction for a serious drug felony. She
now challenges the validity of her plea based upon a language barrier,
ineffectiveness of counsel, and the reasonableness and constitutionality of
her sentence.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair
evaluation of Aragones’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we
therefore decline to consider them without prejudice to collateral review. See
United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
Turning to her challenge to validity of her plea, her plea agreement
contained a waiver of appellate rights (other than ineffective assistance of
counsel and prosecutorial misconduct), but that fact does not bar a challenge
to the validity of the plea. United States v. White, 307 F.3d 336, 343 (5th
2002). Her challenge appears to be based upon her allegation that she did
not understand English sufficiently to understand the plea agreement.
However, she had an interpreter at the rearraignment hearing, agreed under
oath that she was guilty, and agreed to the relevant portions of the plea
agreement. Her challenge thus fails. See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 598 F.
App’x 219, 221 (5th Cir. 2014).
To the extent that her challenge to the district court’s failure to
appoint an interpreter in her pre-plea proceedings survives the appeal waiver,
we find no abuse of discretion or constitutional violation given the district
court’s factual findings regarding Aragones’s English language skills during
the hearing on her request for substitute counsel. See United States v.
Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); Rubio v. Estelle, 689
F.2d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Martinez, 616 F.2d 185, 188
(5th Cir. 1980). Aragones’s sentencing claims are barred by the valid appeal
waiver in her plea agreement. United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746
(5th Cir. 2005).
Case: 19-51134 Document: 00515686223 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2020

No. 19-51134
3
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-51134 Document: 00515686223 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2020