Filed: Oct. 14, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 14, 2008 No. 07-40260 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALD GENE SPEIGHTS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas No. 1:06-CR-106-1 Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ronald Speights argues that his case should be remanded
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 14, 2008 No. 07-40260 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALD GENE SPEIGHTS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas No. 1:06-CR-106-1 Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ronald Speights argues that his case should be remanded t..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 14, 2008
No. 07-40260
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RONALD GENE SPEIGHTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
No. 1:06-CR-106-1
Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Speights argues that his case should be remanded to allow the dis-
trict court to consider a sentence reduction as a result of Amendment 706 to the
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-40260
United States Sentencing Guidelines. The government responds that this ap-
peal is barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in the plea agreement. We
review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. See United States v. Baymon,
312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002).
The record shows that Speights’s waiver was knowing and voluntary, and
he has not raised an issue on appeal that falls within the exceptions to the waiv-
er. See United States v. Bond,
414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,
the waiver bars review of the sentence.
Speights can pursue a reduction in sentence in the district court pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. We express no opinion on the
viability of such relief as it pertains to Speights.
AFFIRMED.
2