United States v. Casel

Case: 21-10607 Document: 00516195689 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 8, 2022
No. 21-10607
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Cecil Charles Casel,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CR-125-1
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Cecil Charles Casel pleaded guilty to attempted child sex trafficking,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(2), 1594(a). He was sentenced to,
inter alia, an above-Sentencing-Guidelines-range term of 175-months’
imprisonment. He contends that the Government’s statements at
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10607 Document: 00516195689 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2022
No. 21-10607
sentencing breached its promise in the plea agreement to recommend a
sentence at the low end of the Guidelines sentencing range.
Generally, whether a breach occurred is a legal issue, reviewed de novo.
United States v. Purser, 747 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2014). Because Casel’s
counsel’s remarks at sentencing were insufficient to alert the district court to
any alleged breach, however, review is only for plain error. See United States
v. Tapia, 946 F.3d 729, 733 (5th Cir. 2020) (concluding remarks at sentencing
were insufficient to preserve plea-agreement-breach challenge because
defendant “merely noted the prohibition without clearly stating that the
Government was violating the plea agreement”). Under that standard, Casel
must show a forfeited plain error (clear or obvious error, rather than one
subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v.
United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have
the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so
only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
judicial proceedings”. Id.Casel fails to show the Government clearly or obviously violated any
express promise in the plea agreement, and that, therefore, the court
committed plain error. The plea agreement stipulated that the Government
recommend a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range. The
Government’s sentencing recommendation was included in the presentence
investigation report, and the Government’s statements at sentencing
confirmed that recommendation and did not withdraw it. See United States
v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 210–11 (5th Cir. 2001) (affirming sentence).
Moreover, even assuming arguendo plain error is shown, Casel fails to
show it affected his substantial rights. In other words, he has not shown a
reasonable probability that, but for the plain error, he would have received a
2
Case: 21-10607 Document: 00516195689 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2022
No. 21-10607
lesser sentence. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 141–42 & n.4 (noting “the
‘outcome’ [defendant] must show to have been affected is his sentence”).
AFFIRMED.
3