UNITED STATES v. SEALES DJ (2020)

Dijon Jamese Seales appeals the 285-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He raises arguments related to the district court’s calculation of his guidelines range. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the appeal waiver in Seales’s plea agreement.

We review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). The record reflects that Seales’s appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). In addition, the language of the appeal waiver applies to Seales’s appellate arguments. See United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 2011).

Counsel for Seales is cautioned that pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver and without responding to the Government’s invocation of the waiver is a needless waste of judicial resources that could result in sanctions. See United States v. Gaitan, 171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1999).

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

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.