United States v. Fausto Becerra

708 F. App'x 213
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 11, 2018
Docket16-41612 Summary Calendar
StatusUnpublished

This text of 708 F. App'x 213 (United States v. Fausto Becerra) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Fausto Becerra, 708 F. App'x 213 (5th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, Fausto Becerra was sentenced, below the guidelines range, to 90 months of imprisonment based on the district court’s finding that he was accountable for 14.97 kilograms of cocaine. On appeal, Becerra contends — for the first time — that the Government breached the plea agreement, which inadvertently stated that he was instead accountable for 19.99 kilograms of marijuana. Because Becerra did not raise this challenge in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Williams, 821 F.3d 656, 657 (5th Cir. 2016); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Becerra’s argument is wholly concluso-ry; he fails to meaningfully address the requisite plain error factors or cite any relevant authority. See United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002) (explaining that the defendant has the burden to show each prong of the plain error test). Consequently, he has abandoned the challenge to his sentence. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006). In any event, we would not find reversible plain error because the record reflects that the Government’s conduct was consistent with Be-cerra’s reasonable understanding of the plea agreement. United States v. Purser, 747 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2014); Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm, R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Reyes
300 F.3d 555 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Charles
469 F.3d 402 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Puckett v. United States
556 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court, 2009)
United States v. Reagan
596 F.3d 251 (Fifth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Christopher Purser
747 F.3d 284 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Jehoni Williams
821 F.3d 656 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
708 F. App'x 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fausto-becerra-ca5-2018.