United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-20731
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARRELL CHARLES BALLARD, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-291-9
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrell Charles Ballard, Jr., appeals from his guilty-plea
conviction of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute
marijuana and conspiring to launder money. Ballard contends that
the appeal waiver provision of his plea agreement regarding his
sentence should not be enforced because the waiver provision was
confusing; because the multi-defendant plea proceeding was
hurried and unorganized; and because the district court did not
mention the exceptions to the waiver. He argues that the record
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20731
-2-
does not demonstrate that he knew he was waiving his right to
appeal. Apart from arguing that the waiver provision should not
be enforced, Ballard contends that his criminal history score was
erroneous; that the district court erred when calculating his
offense level; and that the district court erred by denying the
Government’s motion for a downward departure.
The waiver provision in the plea agreement was clearly
worded and was largely bold-faced. The prosecutor clearly
summarized the sentencing-waiver provision and its exceptions.
See United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002).
The district court ascertained that Ballard understood that he
was waiving his right to appeal, though the district court did
not explain the exceptions to the waiver. The record does not
indicate that the multi-defendant nature of the plea hearing
affected Ballard’s ability to understand the waiver provision.
See United States v. Salazar-Olivares, 179 F.3d 228, 230 (5th
Cir. 1999). The district court adequately ascertained that the
waiver was voluntary; the waiver provision should be enforced.
See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 518 & n.2 (5th Cir.
1999).
Ballard was sentenced within the statutory sentencing range
and there was no upward departure in his case. Ballard waived
his right to appeal his sentence. We therefore do not address
the sentencing contentions Ballard raises on appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.