United States v. Rios-Munoz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 7, 2026
• Docket: 25-60516
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-60516 Document: 65-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 25-60516 April 7, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Francisco Rios-Munoz,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:25-CR-71-1 ______________________________

Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Francisco Rios-Munoz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a previously removed alien. The district court sentenced him to 24 months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Rios-Munoz argues that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to specify, at the

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-60516 Document: 65-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2026

No. 25-60516

sentencing hearing, that it recommended a sentence within the lower 50% of the applicable advisory guidelines range. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the appeal waiver provision in the plea agreement. We generally conduct a de novo review as to whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. United States v. Kelly, 915 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2019). Our review of the record shows that the waiver here was knowing and voluntary. See id. Rios-Munoz is accordingly bound by the waiver of appeal provision unless the Government breached the terms of the plea agreement. See United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002). As Rios-Munoz did not allege that the Government breached the plea agreement in the district court, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Trotter, 157 F.4th 767, 769-70 (5th Cir. 2025). Rios-Munoz also has the burden of demonstrating a breach by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. at 770. When determining whether the Government violated the terms of a plea agreement, we must consider “whether the government’s conduct is consistent with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have held that a Government’s obligation to recommend a particular sentence is satisfied if the presentence report (PSR) includes that recommendation. United States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001). Because the PSR in this case referenced the Government’s recommendation, Rios-Munoz has not demonstrated a clear or obvious error in that regard. He therefore cannot meet the plain-error standard. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE DENIED.