United States v. Leal ( 2023 )

Case: 23-40120 Document: 00516935580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
October 18, 2023
No. 23-40120 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Elizabeth Ayala Leal,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:19-CR-1714-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Elizabeth Ayala Leal pleaded guilty to a single count of wire fraud. In
relevant part, she was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment, a term of
supervised release that included a condition prohibiting her from unapproved
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40120 Document: 00516935580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
No. 23-40120
future employment as a home health worker or in a profession allowing access
to personal identifying information, and $428,642.57 in restitution.
On appeal, Leal argues the Government breached the plea agreement.
In that agreement, Leal agreed to plead guilty to a single count of wire fraud
and to pay $344,642.57 in restitution; the Government agreed to recommend
a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and to dismiss the
remaining counts of the indictment. Leal argues that the Government
breached the agreement by arguing against her acceptance of responsibility,
for the employment condition, and for a higher amount of restitution.
Although Leal objected in the district court to various aspects of her
sentence, she did not argue that the Government breached the plea
agreement. See United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009).
Thus, plain error review applies, and she must show an error that is clear or
obvious and that affects her substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135-36 (2009). While the burden is on the defendant to
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Government
breached a plea agreement, the terms of the agreement are strictly construed
against the Government as the drafter. United States v. Casillas, 853 F.3d 215,
217 (5th Cir. 2017). “A breach occurs if the Government’s conduct was
inconsistent with a reasonable understanding of its obligations.” Id.Leal’s argument regarding acceptance of responsibility is unavailing
because the Government complied with its obligation under the plea
agreement. See id. Her argument regarding the supervised release condition
also fails because it is not consistent with a reasonable understanding of the
Government’s obligations under the agreement. See id. As to the restitution
issue, it is at the very least subject to reasonable dispute whether the
Government breached any term of the plea agreement, and Leal therefore
fails to demonstrate a clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135;
2
Case: 23-40120 Document: 00516935580 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
No. 23-40120
United States v. Smith, 430 F. App’x 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v.
Guerrero-Robledo, 565 F.3d 940, 946 (5th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3