UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4640
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JORGE REYNOSO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-03-6)
Submitted: August 10, 2005 Decided: September 8, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Seguinot, SEGUINOT LAW FIRM, McLean, Virginia, for Appellant.
John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, William F. Gould,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Reynoso seeks to appeal the 135-month sentence he
received after he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute over fifty grams of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Reynoso argues that the
district court committed plain error in declining to find he met
the criteria for a two-level adjustment under the safety valve
exception of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 (2003). For
the reasons explained below, we dismiss the appeal.
Under the terms of his plea agreement, Reynoso waived the
right to appeal his sentence. In his plea agreement, Reynoso
agreed that he was “knowingly and voluntarily waiving any right to
appeal sentencing guidelines factors, and [was] voluntarily willing
to rely on the Court in sentencing [him] under the Sentencing
Guidelines.” (JA 40). At his plea hearing, the district court
reviewed the plea with Reynoso and determined that it was
knowingly and voluntarily entered. Further, the district court
specifically inquired as to Reynoso’s knowledge of the waiver
provision and Reynoso acknowledged that he understood the appellate
waiver provision.
“‘Plea bargains rest on contractual principles, and each
party should receive the benefit of its bargain.’” United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 173 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting United
States v. Ringling, 988 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1993)). Where the
- 2 -
United States seeks to enforce an appeal waiver, and there is no
claim that the United States breached its obligations under the
plea agreement, this court will enforce the waiver to preclude a
defendant from appealing a specific issue if the record establishes
he knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal,
and the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.
Id. at 168-69. On appeal, Reynoso does not challenge his waiver as
unknowing or involuntary or allege that his issue is not within the
scope of the waiver. Because Reynoso expressly agreed to waive his
appellate rights in regard to sentencing guideline issues, we find
his argument squarely foreclosed by our recent decision in Blick,
408 F.3d at 171-72.
Accordingly, while we grant Reynoso’s May 6, 2005* motion
to supplement his brief, we dismiss this appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
We deny Reynoso’s March 31, 2005 motion to supplement as
moot.
- 3 -