IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10600
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TOMMY HAYNES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CR-63-4-C
- - - - - - - - - -
February 14, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tommy Haynes appeals his conviction and sentence after
pleading guilty to a single count of possession with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of amphetamine. See 18 U.S.C. § 2;
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C). He argues that the district
court erred during the guilty-plea hearing because it (1) failed
to inform him of the effect of supervised release; (2) failed to
inform him that it could depart from the sentencing guidelines;
and (3) failed to inquire whether anyone besides the Government
coerced him into pleading guilty. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-10600
-2-
As part of a written agreement, Haynes waived his right to
appeal the conviction, judgment, or sentence. He reserved the
right to appeal (1) any punishment imposed in excess of the
statutory maximum; (2) any punishment to the extent it
constitutes an upward departure from the guideline range deemed
most applicable by the sentencing court, and an improper
computation of the applicable guideline level; and (3) any claim
based on a Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Haynes has waived his right to challenge any Rule 11
omissions on appeal. See United States v. Packer, 70 F.3d 357,
359 (5th Cir. 1995)(applying waiver when defendant argued that
the court failed to advise him of an essential element of the
offense). He does not challenge the validity of the waiver
provision in his plea agreement. See United States v. Robinson,
187 F.3d 516, 517-18 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Haynes’
appeal is DISMISSED.