United States v. Pyle

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-50014
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS GIBBS PYLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:04-CR-108-1
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Gibbs Pyle appeals his guilty-plea conviction and
sentence for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 50 grams or
more of methamphetamine, on some occasions within 1,000 feet of a
school. As part of his plea agreement, Pyle waived his right to
appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and sentence on any
grounds except ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial
misconduct of a constitutional dimension. He argues that the
plea agreement should be invalidated because the Government

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-50014
-2-
breached the agreement by refusing to move for a downward
departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. He also argues that, in
light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the
district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights.
Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Government had
the “sole discretion” to determine whether any information Pyle
provided warranted the filing of a motion for downward departure.
In the absence of an unconstitutional motive claim, Pyle’s
contention that the Government breached the plea agreement is
without merit. See United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 368 (5th
Cir. 1996).
The record shows that Pyle knowingly and voluntarily waived
his appellate rights, and the appellate waiver is enforceable.
See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994).
Pyle’s Booker argument falls outside of the exceptions contained
in the appellate waiver. Accordingly, Pyle’s appeal is
dismissed. See United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th
Cir. 2002).
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --