Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50826/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50826-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joel Costilla
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50826

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL COSTILLA, also known as Sharky,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-1661-6

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joel Costilla pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy 

to conduct the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering and 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms of marijuana. He 

argues that the Government breached the plea agreement by not advising the 

probation officer of any relevant facts that would have demonstrated 

acceptance of responsibility on his part. Costilla did not argue in the district 

* 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

April 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50826 Document: 00512998051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
No. 14-50826

court that the plea agreement was breached and, thus, we review for plain 

error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135-36 (2009).

In exchange for Costilla’s plea, the Government agreed not to challenge 

any recommended findings in the Presentence Report (PSR) that Costilla’s 

guideline offense be adjusted to reflect his acceptance of responsibility. The 

agreement also provided that, if the court found that Costilla was entitled to 

the adjustment and that his base offense level before the adjustment was at 

least level 16, the Government agreed “to move for the third-level reduction at 

the time of sentencing based on the defendant’s timely agreement to plead 

guilty[.]” 

Costilla’s argument that the Government had a duty under the plea 

agreement to essentially advocate for a reduction for acceptance of

responsibility by providing “its version of the facts of [his] case” is not a 

reasonable understanding of the plea agreement. See United States v. 

Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002). Further, the PSR did not 

recommend that Costilla be awarded an adjustment for acceptance of 

responsibility. Thus, there was no fulfillment of the condition that would have 

triggered the Government’s obligation not to oppose a downward adjustment 

and to move for an additional acceptance point. See United States v. Mejia, No. 

93-2611, 1994 WL 243287, 1 (5th Cir. May 19, 1994) (unpublished). 

To the extent Costilla argues that the district court erred in not granting 

him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the argument is barred by the 

appeal waiver in his plea agreement. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 

544 (5th Cir. 2005).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-50826 Document: 00512998051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2015