USA v. Dora Flores-Quintana

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-40076 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: EGJ , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 11/04/2011 for Appellant Dora Maria Flores-Quintana [11-40076]

Case: 11-40076

Document: 00511632992

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/14/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 11-40076
Summary Calendar

October 14, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DORA MARIA FLORES-QUINTANA,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:10-CR-2225-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dora Maria Flores-Quintana (Flores) pleaded guilty pursuant to a written
plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute more than one kilogram
of heroin, and she was sentenced within the guidelines range to 135 months of
imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Flores agreed in the written
plea agreement to waive her right to appeal her conviction, her sentence, and the
manner in which her sentence was determined, with no exceptions.

The

Government has expressed its intent to enforce the waiver.
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Case: 11-40076

Document: 00511632992

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/14/2011

No. 11-40076
Flores argues on appeal that her sentence is substantively unreasonable
because it is greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
However, this argument is barred by her appeal waiver. See United States v.
Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2006). Although Flores asserts that if the
Government enforces the waiver, she preserves for possible Supreme Court
review “her argument that appeal waivers made without knowledge of the rights
being sacrificed are neither knowing nor voluntary,” she has not adequately
briefed the issue, and thus she has abandoned it. See United States v. Trujillo,
502 F.3d 353, 360 & n.30 (5th Cir. 2007); Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607,
612-13 (5th Cir. 1999); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.

2