USA v. Jose Quintanilla


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-20555 Affirmed] Judge: PEH, Judge: EHJ, Judge: JES. Mandate issue date is 11/16/2017 for Appellant Jose William Quintanilla [16-20555]

Download PDF
Case: 16-20555 Document: 00514209720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-20555 Summary Calendar FILED October 25, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSE WILLIAM QUINTANILLA, also known as Pablo, also known as Ronko, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CR-497-2 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose William Quintanilla appeals following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiring in the sex trafficking of children by force and coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). He argues that the district court’s refusal to hear his testimony at the sentencing hearing violated the Due Process Clause, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a), and this court’s precedents. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-20555 Document: 00514209720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2017 No. 16-20555 Quintanilla entered his plea in accordance with a written plea agreement wherein he waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except with the respect to his right to appeal a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government seeks to enforce the waiver. Our review whether the waiver provision bars the instant appeal is de novo. United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 780-81 (5th Cir. 2011). We construe the plea agreement “like a contract, seeking to determine the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement and construing any ambiguity against the Government.” United States v. Farias, 469 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2006) (footnote omitted). We need not reach whether the waiver encompasses Quintanilla’s challenge to the conduct of the sentencing hearing. Rather, our review of the record satisfies us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hear testimony. See United States v. Jackson, 453 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Henderson, 19 F.3d 917, 927 (5th Cir. 1994). AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?