United States v. Carlos Ortiz, 19-40324

Ortiz pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
The district court ordered Ortiz’s federal sentence to run consecutively to anticipated sentences in two pending state cases, citing U.S.S.G. §5G1.3.
Ortiz appealed, arguing (1) the district court erred under §5G1.3 in imposing a consecutive federal sentence, and (2) two special supervised-release conditions were unconstitutional (unlawful delegation to the probation officer and requiring payment for treatment that could lead to imprisonment for inability to pay).
The Government moved for summary dismissal based on a broad appellate-waiver in Ortiz’s plea agreement (waiving appeal “on all grounds” except appeals for punishment above the statutory maximum and ineffective-assistance claims).
The record showed Ortiz’s waiver was knowing and voluntary; the court analyzed whether the waiver covered Ortiz’s claims and whether recognized exceptions applied.
The Fifth Circuit enforced the appellate waiver, granted summary dismissal of the appeal, and denied the Government’s alternative motion for an extension to file a merits brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ortiz may appeal the district court’s order that the federal sentence run consecutively to anticipated state sentences under U.S.S.G. §5G1.3	Ortiz contends he would not reasonably understand the broad waiver to bar a §5G1.3 challenge to consecutive sentencing	The Government argues the waiver was knowing and voluntary and bars sentence challenges “on all grounds”	Waiver valid and covers this claim; appeal dismissed
Whether a supervised-release condition unconstitutionally delegates judicial authority to the probation officer	Ortiz argues the special condition improperly delegates judicial authority	Government contends supervised-release conditions are part of the sentence and permissible; review barred by waiver	Condition challenged falls within the statutory scope of supervised release and is waived from appellate review
Whether requiring Ortiz to pay for drug/mental-health programs risks imprisonment for inability to pay (unconstitutional punishment)	Ortiz argues the payment condition could lead to imprisonment for debt and is therefore unconstitutional	Government contends the condition complies with statutory limits on supervised release and is waived	Court held conditions do not exceed statutory limits and review is barred by the waiver

United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725 (5th Cir. 2002) (review standard for validity of appeal waivers)
United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 1994) (knowing and voluntary waiver requirement)
United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011) (ambiguity in waivers construed but agreements enforced as written)
United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2014) (supervised release and its conditions are part of the sentence)
United States v. Cortez, 413 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2005) (conditions cannot impose punishment beyond statutory maximum)
United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2006) (enforcement of appellate waivers and dismissal of appeals)