Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50852/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50852-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samuel Alfonso Elias-Lujan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50852

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAMUEL ALFONSO ELIAS-LUJAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-159-4

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Samuel Alfonso Elias-Lujan (Elias) 

pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute 

marijuana and was sentenced to 60 months in prison and a five-year term of 

supervised release. He now appeals, arguing that his plea agreement was 

breached due to misleading language in the plea agreement regarding the 

safety-valve reduction and, as a result, the appellate waiver is unenforceable.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50852 Document: 00513052865 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2015
No. 14-50852

The signed plea agreement and rearraignment transcript show that 

Elias freely and knowingly waived his appellate rights. See United States v. 

Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). Elias’s claim that his plea agreement 

was breached survives the waiver. See United States v. Keresztury, 293 F.3d 

750, 755-57 (5th Cir. 2002). Nevertheless, this argument, which is reviewed 

for plain error only, is unavailing because the plea agreement clearly states 

that Elias must satisfy U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(4) to be considered for the safety 

valve reduction and the reduction was denied because Elias did not qualify for 

it due to his criminal history. See United States v. Branam, 231 F.3d 931, 933 

(5th Cir. 2000).

To the extent that Elias argues that the prosecutor committed 

misconduct by presenting the plea agreement to him even though the 

prosecutor knew that Elias would not qualify for the safety-valve reduction, 

Elias cannot show plain error because he has not shown that the prosecutor 

acted improperly or took action that rendered the proceedings unfair. See 

Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 (1982); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009). Finally, to the extent that Elias argues that the plea 

agreement or appeal waiver is invalid because the agreement lacked 

consideration, he cannot establish that the district court plainly erred in 

accepting the agreement as this court has never expressly held that 

consideration is required to support a valid plea bargain. See United States v. 

Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231, 1239-40 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Adams, 

369 F. App’x 621 (5th Cir. 2010). The judgment of the district court is therefore 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-50852 Document: 00513052865 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2015