IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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 kilograms of cocaine. He argues that

his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because the district

court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, that the

Government breached his plea agreement, and the district court violated his

rights under the Sixth Amendment by denying his requests for selfrepresentation.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

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

Gonzalez did not raise any of his appellate arguments in the district court. 

Accordingly, this court will review the district court’s actions for plain error only. 

See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002). To prevail on plain-error

review, Gonzalez must show that an error occurred, that the error was clear or

obvious, and that the error affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If those factors are established, the decision to

correct the forfeited 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 Gonzalez’s rearraignment hearing, the district court committed obvious

error by failing to advise Gonzalez of the minimum or maximum terms of

imprisonment that could be imposed for his offense. See United States v.

Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Molina, 469

F.3d 408, 412 (5th Cir. 2006). However, Gonzalez has not established reversible

plain error because he has not demonstrated a “reasonable probability that, but

for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. DominguezBenitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004).

The Government did not honor its plea agreement promise to recommend

that Gonzalez 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 moved for a reduction in Gonzalez’s offense level pursuant

to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), Gonzalez has not shown that the district court would

have granted the motion or that it would have resulted in a shorter sentence. 

See United States v. Williamson, 598 F.3d 227, 230-31(5th Cir. 2010).

Finally, Gonzalez has not shown error, plain or otherwise, in his allegation

that the district court violated hisSixth Amendment 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