IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-51137
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TYRONNE DESHON CLEVELAND,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-99-CR-76-2-JN
--------------------
June 14, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tyronne Deshon Cleveland pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute heroin. The plea agreement contained a waiver-of-
appeal provision. Cleveland’s sole argument before this court is
that the waiver provision is unenforceable because the magistrate
judge did not ask Cleveland if he had read and understood the
waiver provision and because Cleveland received insufficient
benefits from the plea agreement.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-51137
-2-
A defendant may waive his statutory right to appeal as part
of a valid plea agreement if the waiver is knowing and voluntary.
United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir. 1992).
The defendant must know that he had a right to appeal his
sentence and that he is giving up that right. Id.; United States
v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994).
Our review of the record reveals 1) that the plea agreement
and the waiver-of-appeal provision were discussed in the plea
agreement Cleveland signed, at Cleveland’s guilty-plea hearing,
and at sentencing before the district court accepted the
magistrate judge’s recommendation to accept the plea and 2) that
Cleveland understood his right to appeal and waived it. See
Portillo, 18 F.3d at 292-93. Cleveland’s challenge to the
waiver-of-appeal provision is without merit.
AFFIRMED.