United States v. Fausto Becerra

Case: 16-41612 Document: 00514305262 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 16-41612
Fifth Circuit
Summary Calendar
FILED
January 11, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FAUSTO BECERRA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:16-CR-186-1
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
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
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 16-41612 Document: 00514305262 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2018
No. 16-41612
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 (2009).
Becerra’s argument is wholly conclusory; 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 Becerra’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. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment.
2