IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10167

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTHONY HARRISON BELL, also known as Pajaro,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CR-264-7

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 1995, Anthony Harrison Bell pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea 

agreement to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Prior to 

sentencing, Bell absconded from supervision. As a result, he was not sentenced 

until 2017. The district court imposed a sentence of 168 months of

imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Bell timely appealed, 

arguing that the Government breached the plea agreement.

 

* 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

November 29, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10167 Document: 00514254177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2017
No. 17-10167

2

Bell argues that the Government failed to perform its obligations under

the plea agreement by failing to file a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion for downward 

departure and failing to recommend a 60-month sentence. He argues that he 

“substantially complied” with the plea agreement before he absconded and 

should, therefore, be given “the benefit of the bargain.” He alternatively 

asserts that he partially fulfilled his duties under the plea agreement and is

entitled to “some benefit” under the theory of quantum meruit. 

Bell has the burden of showing “the underlying facts that establish [the 

Government’s] breach by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. 

Long, 722 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Roberts, 624 

F.3d 241, 246 (5th Cir. 2010)). In determining whether a breach occurred, we

must decide “whether the [G]overnment’s conduct is consistent with [Bell’s]

reasonable understanding of the agreement.” United States v. Hinojosa, 749 

F.3d 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lewis, 476 F.3d 369, 

387–88 (5th Cir. 2007)). A district court’s factual findings regarding an alleged 

breach are reviewed only for clear error. United States v. Loza-Gracia, 670 

F.3d 639, 642 (5th Cir. 2012).

The plea agreement provided, in relevant part, that Bell “shall cooperate 

with the Government, by giving truthful and complete information and 

testimony concerning his and others[’] participation in and knowledge of the 

crimes committed by persons named in the indictment and others not named.” 

The plea agreement provided that the Government would move for a 

downward departure “if [Bell] fully complie[d] with the terms” of the plea 

agreement. The agreement also provided that the Government’s sentencing 

recommendation and motion for downward departure were “wholly dependant 

on [Bell’s] total and complete cooperation with any law enforcement agency.”

 Case: 17-10167 Document: 00514254177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2017
No. 17-10167

3

Here, the district court credited an affidavit by the investigators who 

debriefed Bell and found that, although Bell had provided some useful 

information, he also had been untruthful and not entirely forthcoming 

regarding his role in the offense and the role of one of his coconspirators. The 

district court’s factual finding is not clearly erroneous and demonstrates that 

Bell failed to provide “total and complete cooperation.” The Government’s 

sentencing recommendations were expressly conditioned upon such 

cooperation. Thus, Bell has not shown that the Government breached the plea 

agreement.

Finally, Bell argues that he “is entitled to recover in quantum meruit.” 

As he failed to raise this objection below, our review is for plain error only. See 

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Bell does not point to any 

authority indicating that the district court erred by failing to award him “some

benefit” in quantum meruit, and therefore has not demonstrated any potential 

error was “plain.” Cf. United States v. Guillen-Cruz, 853 F.3d 768, 772 (5th 

Cir. 2017) (“[G]enerally, ‘if a defendant’s theory requires the extension of 

precedent, any potential error could not have been “plain.”’” quoting United 

States v. Guzman, 739 F.3d 241, 246 n.8 (5th Cir. 2014)).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-10167 Document: 00514254177 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/29/2017