USA v. Stephen Eikelboom

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-50708 Dismissed ] Judge: JES , Judge: RHB , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 07/28/2015 for Appellant Stephen Eikelboom [13-50708]

Case: 13-50708

Document: 00513106550

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/07/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-50708
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
July 7, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
STEPHEN EIKELBOOM,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:10-CR-7-1
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Stephen Eikelboom challenges his 151-month sentence, imposed on
resentencing for his conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii). He claims the court: committed
plain error by failing to inquire, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32, whether he had read the revised presentence investigation
report and discussed it with his attorney; and erred by converting cash

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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: 13-50708

Document: 00513106550

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/07/2015

No. 13-50708
currency into drug equivalents for purposes of computing his base-offense
level, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(a)(5), (c)(4) (setting offender’s
offense level at 32 for possession of at least 3,000, but less than 10,000,
kilograms of marijuana equivalent). In response, the Government asserts,
inter alia, that the appeal should be dismissed based on Eikelboom’s waiver of
his right to appeal, contained in his plea agreement.
Pursuant to the terms of the waiver, Eikelboom waived the right to
directly appeal his sentence on any ground, except the denial of his motions to
suppress and the applicability of the career-offender provision. Therefore, the
waiver provision encompasses his Rule 32 and Guideline § 2D1.1 challenges.
Because Eikelboom does not challenge the voluntariness, and the Government
seeks enforcement, of the waiver, the appeal is dismissed. See, e.g., United
States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005); see also United States v.
Walters, 732 F.3d 489, 491 (5th Cir. 2013).
DISMISSED.

2