United States v. Hailey ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10293 Document: 00516132575 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 15, 2021
No. 20-10293
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Choya Dwayne Hailey,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CR-73-1
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Choya Dwayne Hailey appeals his conviction and sentence for
possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He contends that
the Government breached his plea agreement by failing to move for a
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10293 Document: 00516132575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2021
No. 20-10293
downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 based on his substantial
assistance in the investigation or prosecution of others.
Because Hailey did not raise this argument in the district court, we
review it for plain error only. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009); United States v. Cluff, 857 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2017). Even if
Hailey could show that the Government bargained away its discretion
regarding whether to file a § 5K1.1 motion if it determined that he provided
substantial assistance, see United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 368 (5th
Cir. 1996); United States v. Watson, 988 F.2d 544, 552-53 (5th Cir. 1993), he
has not shown a clear or obvious error. Based on his arguments and the
record evidence, Hailey fails to demonstrate that it is beyond reasonable
dispute that the Government breached the plea agreement by determining,
at least implicitly, that he did not provide substantial assistance in the
investigation and prosecution of others, as the term was reasonably
understood by the parties at the time of the plea agreement. See United States
v. Bishop, 603 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 2010); Price, 95 F.3d at 367-68. Thus,
there is no plain error.
AFFIRMED.
2