IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30828

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

DION PAUL BARNES, also known as Douglas M. Barnes, also known as 

Christopher Singleton, also known as Terrell Rios, also known as Myron 

Brooks, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 3:15-CR-133-1 

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Dion Paul Barnes appeals his conviction and sentence following his 

guilty plea, pursuant to a written agreement, to conspiracy to make, utter, and 

possess counterfeit securities. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the 

Government breached its agreement to recommend a third-level reduction in 

his offense level for acceptance of responsibility and to permit him to freely 

 

* 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 2, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30828 Document: 00513975520 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2017
No. 16-30828

2 

litigate the loss amount attributable to him. We review for plain error. See 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134, 143 (2009); United States v. 

Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014). 

We look to whether the Government’s conduct was consistent with the 

parties’ reasonable understanding of the agreement. See Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 

at 413; United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002). Here, the 

Government satisfied its obligation when it moved in the plea agreement for a 

one-point reduction. Absent the district court’s award of the initial two levels 

for acceptance of responsibility, the Government cannot be said to have had 

any further obligation under the plea agreement with respect to acceptance of 

responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b); Hinojosa, 749 F.3d at 413; United 

States v. Hernandez-Garcia, 442 F. App’x 136, 137 (5th Cir. 2011); United 

States v. Stetzel, 183 F. App’x 432, 434 (5th Cir. 2006). Nor does the record 

show that the Government breached the plea agreement with respect to 

Barnes’s freedom to litigate the loss amount, as the Government’s argument 

was that Barnes was not entitled to a two-level reduction because he had lied 

and had denied relevant conduct. 

Even if, for the sake of argument, the Government’s objection to Barnes’s 

receiving a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was contrary to Barnes’s

reasonable understanding of the agreement, he cannot show the Government’s 

purported breach affected his substantial rights. See Hinojosa, 749 F.3d at 

411. Given Barnes’s conduct with respect to his identity and that he denied all 

relevant conduct, he was not entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility under § 3E1.1(a). See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b), comment. 

(nn.1(A), 3). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-30828 Document: 00513975520 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2017