### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 11-20870 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE ANGEL GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CR-84-2

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Angel Gonzalez appeals his guilty-plea conviction of possessing with the intent to distribute approximately five k ilograms of cocaine. He argues that his guilty p l ea w a s n ot knowingly and voluntarily entered because the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, that the Government b r e a c h e d his p lea agreement, and the district court violated his rights under t he Sixt h A mendment by d enying his r equests for selfrepresentation. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 18, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 11-20870 Document: 00512212615 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2013No. 11-20870

Gonzalez did not raise a ny o f his appellate arguments i n the district court. Accordingly, this court will review the district court’s actions for p lain error only. See United States v . Vonn , 5 35 U.S. 5 5 , 58-59 (2002). To p revail on plain-error review, Gonzalez must show that an e rror occurred, that the error was clear or obvious, and that the e rror affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 ( 2 009). If those factors are established, the decision to correct the f

orf e ited error is within this court’s sound discretion, and that discretion will not be exercised unless the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings

. See id. At G o n z a l e z ’ s r e a rraignment hearing, the district court commi tt e d ob vi o u s
error by failing to ad v i s e G o n z alez of the minimum or maximum terms of imprisonmen t t hat could be imposed f or his offense. See United S tates v. Carreon-Ibarra , 673 F.3d 3 58, 364 ( 5 th Cir. 2012); United States v. Molina , 469 F.3d 4 08, 412 (5th Cir. 2 006). However, Gonzalez has not e stablished reversible plain error because h e has not demonstrated a “reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered t he p lea.” United S tates v. DominguezBenitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). The Government did not honor its plea agreement p r omise to recommend that G onzalez receive “full credit for acceptance of responsibility.” However, any breach of the plea agreement does not constitute reversible plain error. Even if the Government had m o v e d for a reduction in G onzalez’s offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), G onzalez h as not shown that the district court would have granted the motion or that it would have r e sulted in a shorter sentence. See United States v. Williamson , 598 F.3d 227, 230-31(5th Cir. 2010). Finally, Gonzalez has not shown error, plai n or otherwise, i n his a llegation that the district court vi o l a t e d h i s S ixth Am e ndment right to self-representation. Gonzalez made three unequivocal requests to proceed pro se. In each instance, the district court held a hearing, and Gonzalez clearly withdrew his request. AFFIRMED.
2 Case: 11-20870 Document: 00512212615 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2013