United States v. Luis Castro-Delgado, 673 F. App'x 439

Castro-Delgado, on supervised release, pleaded guilty (per agreement) to transporting an illegal alien for commercial advantage and aiding and abetting; sentenced to 36 months imprisonment plus 5 years supervised release.
His prior supervised release was revoked and an 8-month revocation term was imposed to run consecutively to the 36-month sentence.
On appeal Castro-Delgado argued: (1) the five-year supervised-release term exceeded the statutory maximum, (2) any supervised release was improper because he is deportable, and (3) consecutive imprisonment sentences were procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
The Government conceded the five-year supervised-release term was over the statutory maximum.
The Government sought to enforce an appeal-waiver in Castro-Delgado’s plea agreement against the other two arguments.
The Fifth Circuit found the waiver knowing and voluntary, dismissed the appeal as to the waived claims, but vacated and remanded for resentencing to correct the overlong supervised-release term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the five-year supervised-release term exceeded the statutory maximum	Five years imposed; challenged as over statutory limit	Government originally defended but conceded error on this point	Court: five years exceeds statutory maximum for Class C felony; vacated sentence in part and remanded for resentencing
Whether any supervised release should have been imposed because defendant is deportable	Supervised release improper for deportable alien	Government invoked appeal waiver to bar review	Court did not reach merits; appeal waived and dismissed as to this claim
Whether consecutive sentences (36 months + 8 months) were unreasonable	Consecutive terms procedurally/substantively unreasonable	Government invoked the appeal waiver to bar review	Court: challenge barred by valid appeal waiver; appeal dismissed as to this claim
Whether the appeal waiver is enforceable	N/A — Castro-Delgado contended issues despite waiver	Government argued waiver was knowing and voluntary and should bar appeals	Court: waiver was knowing and voluntary; enforceable as to the contested claims the Government invoked

United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 1999) (defendant may waive appellate rights in a plea agreement)
United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2005) (courts enforce valid appeal waivers to the extent applicable)
United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2006) (Government may choose to invoke an appeal waiver)
United States v. Burns, 433 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2005) (review of validity of an appeal waiver is de novo)
United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 2005) (Rule 11 plea colloquy supports knowing and voluntary waiver)
United States v. Walters, 732 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2013) (appeal dismissal appropriate where waiver covers the claims)
United States v. Cooper, 274 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2001) (appellate courts will correct an overlong supervised-release term on plain-error review)
United States v. Hollins, [citation="97 F. App'x 477"] (5th Cir. 2004) (questioning whether appeal waivers can preclude review of statutory maximum errors)