Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20309 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. V IC T O R RA M IR O -S O L IS , a ls o k n o w n a s R a m ir o , D e fe nda nt

- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C R

- 243- 2

B ef ore JO L LY , B A R K S D A L E an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * F oll ow i n g h i s gu i l ty p l ea to con sp i ri n g to p oss ess w i thin ten t to d i strib u te fiv e k ilo g r a m s o rm o r e o f c o c a in e , V ic to rR a m ir o -S o lis w a s s e n te n c e d , in tera lia , t o 12 9 m o nt hs ’ i m pr i s o nm e nt
. H e as s e r t s t he G o ve r nm e nt br e ac he d hi s pl ea ag r e e m e ntb y us i ng i nf o r m at i o n o bt ai ne d f

r o m hi m in hi s po s t

- pl e a de br i e f i ng i n deter m i n i n g t h e app l i cabl e drugqu an t i t y f or s e nt e nc i ng purpo s e s . “T h i s c ou rt
rev i ew s a claim of b rea ch of aplea ag ree m en t de no vo , acc e p ting the dis t ri ct
cou rt’ s fa ctu a lf

i n d i n gs u n l ess cl ea rl y e rron eo u s. ” Un itedS ta tes v. L ew is , 476 United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 22, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20309 Document: 00511058709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 20309

2 F. 3d 369, 387 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (c i t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. D a v is , 393 F. 3d 540, 546 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 )). A t s e n te n c in g , th e G o v e r n m e n t s ta te dt h a t , a t d e b r ie fin g , aft ere nt e r i ng t h e pl ea agreem en t , R am i ro adm i t t ed to t h e rel evan tdrugqu an t i t y. R am i ro
c o nt e nds t hi s c o ns t i t ut e s ab r e ac h of h i s pl e a ag r e e m e ntb e c aus e t he G overnm en t ’ s prof

fer l et t er provi dedt h at se l f

- i n cri m i n ati n g i n f orm ati on pr o vi de d b y Ram i r o duri ng de br i e f i ng w o ul d no tb e us e d a ga i ns thi m . The pr o vi s i o n i n i s s ue r e q u ir e s th eGo ve r nm e ntt o c o m ply w i t h Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne § 1 B1. 8(b) (“ U s e o f

C e r t ai n I nf

o r m at i o n” ) , und e rw hi c h i nf o r m at i o n kno w n t o t he G o ve r nm e nt pr i o r t o e nt e r i ng t he pl e a ag r e e m e ntm ayb e us e d t o de t e r m i ne t he ap pl i cabl e adv i sory gui del i n es s en t en ci n g ran ge. The di s t r i c tc o ur tf

o und t hat , t hr o ughdr ug l e dg e r s s e i z e d d ur i ng t he i nve s t i ga t i o n ( andde s c r ibe d i n t he pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i o n r e po r t) , t he G overnm en tkn ew of t h e drugqu a n tityp ri or t o R am i ro’ s debri ef i n g. Fu rt h er, t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts t at e d thati tre l i e d s o l e l y o n t he s e l e dg e r s i n de t e r m i ni ng t he
r e le v a n t d r u gq u a n tit y . R a m ir o fa ile dt o re b u t t h e re lia b ilityo f th e le d g e r s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B et an court , 42 2 F. 3d 24 0, 24 8 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 5) (“ The de fe nda nt bears t h e bu rden of show i n g t h at th e i n f orm ati on i n t h e [presentence in v e s tig a tio n r e p o r t] r e lie do n b yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t is m a te r ia llyu n tr u e .” ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lf ord , 142 F

. 3d825 , 8 32 ( 5th C i r. 1 998 ) ) )

. T h e di st ri ct
c o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng t hatthe G o ve r nm e ntkne w t he r e l e va nt qua nt i t y be f o r e e nt e r i ng t h e pl ea agreem en ti s not cl earl y erroneou s. T h eref ore, t h ere w as n o breach of th a t ag ree m en t. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-20309 Document: 00511058709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2010