United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 29, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30923
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MEREDITH M. MATHERNE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:03-CR-201-1
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Meredith M. Matherne appeals the sentence imposed following
her conviction on a guilty plea on one count of using a
communications facility to distribute a controlled substance and
on one count of possession of methamphetamine. She asserts that
the use of any statements obtained from Matherne, pursuant to an
agreement to grant immunity, to increase her offense level is a
violation of due process and that the district court relied upon
insufficiently reliable evidence in determining the extent of her
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-30923
-2-
relevant conduct. Matherne also asserts that certain sentencing
enhancements violate the Sixth Amendment rule announced in United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
The Government urges us to enforce the appeal waiver
provision contained in Matherne’s plea agreement, and we do so.
See United States v. Martinez, 263 F.3d 436, 437-38 (5th Cir.
2001). Our review of the rearraignment transcript demonstrates
that the waiver was both informed and voluntary. See United
States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994); United
States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992).
Matherne’s first two sentencing challenges are precluded by the
waiver as neither of them goes to the limited exceptions thereto.
Nor does Matherne’s Booker challenge fall within either of the
two exceptions to the waiver. See, e.g., United States v. Bond,
___ F.3d , No. 04-41125, 2005 WL 1459641, at *3 (5th Cir. June
21, 2005) (statutory maximum in waiver refers to maximum allowed
by statute, not Guidelines maximum authorized by guilty plea or
jury verdict); United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746-47
(5th Cir. 2005) (sentence imposed in violation of Booker rule did
not constitute upward departure). Accordingly, Matherne’s appeal
is barred by the waiver and is DISMISSED.
APPEAL DISMISSED.