P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 40559 Su m m ar y Cal 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. M AR I O U RI EL SAN CH EZ- AL VA RE Z 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 t h e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 06- C R
- 177- 3 B e fo r e J O L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * M a r ioU r ie l S a n c h e z - A lv a r e z a p p e a l s h is 1 0 8 -m o n th s e n te n c efo llo w in gh is gu i l t y pl e a c o nvi c t i o n f o rc o ns pi r ac y t o po s s e s s w i t h i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e m o re t h an f ive kil o g ra m s o f

coc ai n e. San chez- A lvarez pl ead ed gu i l t y pu rsuan tt o a w r i t t e n pl e a ag r e e m e nt . H e a r gue s f o rt he fir s tt i m e o n a ppe alt hatt he G overnm en tbreached t h e t erm i n t h e agreem en trequi ri n g a recom m en da t i on f o ram i no rr o l e a dj us t m e nt . H e po i nt s t o t he f o l l o w i ng s t at e m e ntm ad e b y t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 40559

We note that the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari on the 1 question of what standard of reviewapplies to a forf eited clai m that the government breache da plea agree ment . United States v. Puckett , 505 F.3d377 (5 thC ir . 200 7) , cert. granted , 171 L. Ed. 2d 932 (Oct. 1, 2008). Because w ef i n d nob reach underany standard, we co ncl u de that the standard of review question does not control the outcome of

this case. 2 prosecutorat t h e sentenci n g h eari n g: “M y - - you kn ow , m y gu tfeel i n g i s t h ere w as m or e i nvolvem ent , butI don’ thave any ev i denc e t o pr ov e th a t he has ad di t i o nal i nvo lve m e nt be yo nd hi s r o l e i n r e pa c ka gi ng t he nar c o t i c s at t he l o c at i o n. ” Sa nc he z - Al va r e z f ur t he ra s s e r t s t hatt he G o ve r nm e ntb r e ac he d t he agr ee m entby notobj ec t i ng t o the pr obat i on o f f i c er ’ s c harac t er i zat i on o f hi m as b e in g“ m o r e c u lp a b le t h a n t h e o th e rd e fe n d a n ts ” a n dt h a t h e “ h a da la r g e rro le w ith in th e co n s p ir a c y .” I f a de fendantfai l s t o o bj ec tt o a n al l ege d breac h i n t he di st r i c tc our t , as is th e ca s e h e r e , re v ie w is fo r p la in e r r o r . S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Br ana m , 231 F. 3d 931 , 933 ( 5th C i r. 200 0) . “A defenda n t assert i n g a breach bears t h e bu rden of 1 pro vi ng, by pre ponder ance of t he e vi denc e, t he under l yi ng fac t s es t abl i shi ng a b rea ch . ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Laday , 56 F . 3 d24 , 26 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 5 ) (f oo tn ote om i t t ed) . T hi s c our tappl i es gener alpr i nci pl es of c ont r ac tl aw i n i nt er pre t i ng a p le a a g r e e m e n t. Un itedS ta tes v. Ca n tu , 1 8 5 F .3d 2 9 8 , 3 0 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ).

“ [ T] hi s c o ur tco ns i de r s w he t he rt he g o ve r nm e nt ’ s c o nduc ti s c o ns i s t e ntw i t h t he d efen d a n t’ s rea son a b l e un d ersta n d i n g of th e a gr ee m en t. ” Id . ( quo t at i o n m ar ks a n dcita tion om itted ). Sanc he z - Al va r e z ha s no ts ho w n ab r e ac h of t he pl e a ag r e e m e nt . As t he G overnm en targu es, Sa n chez- A lvarez t ak es t h e prosecutor ’ s s t ate m en tout of c ont ext . A r evi ew of t he se nt enc i ng t r ansc r i ptr ef l ec t s t hatt he s t at em entw as m ad e du ri n g a dis cussi on at sentenci n g of w h et h er San chez- A lva r e z q ualif i e d f or a d e c r e a s e p u r s u a n t t o th e “s a fe ty -v a lv e ” p r o v i s i o n . A s fo ram in o rro le adj us t m e nt , t he s e nt e nc i ng t r ans c r i ptr e f l ect s t hatt he pr o s e c ut o ra dv i s e d t he di s t r i c t c o ur t t hat t he r e w as a s t i pul at i o n at t he r e ar r ai gnm e nt t hatt heN o. 07- 40559

3 G ove r nm entw oul d r ec om m en d a m i norr ol e a dj ust m ent . I n suppor tof t hat r ec om m endat i on, t he pr os ec ut ors t at ed t hati tw as t he G ove r nm ent ’ s beli ef t hat S an chez- A lvarez di d n otha ve a “ sup ervi sor rol e” a n d t h at “[h ] i s rol e w as l i m i t ed t o t hato f

r e pa ckag i n g t he c o c ai ne . ” The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r ej e c t i o n o f t he G overnm en t ’ s r ecom m en da t i on doe s n otconst i t u t e a breach of t h e pl ea agr ee m ent . R at her , the t r ansc r i ptref l ec t s t hatthe G ove r nm ent ’ s c onductw as “c o n s is te n t w ith th e d e fe n d a n t’s re a s o n a b l e u n d e r s ta n d in go f th e a g r e e m e n t.” S eeCa n tu , 1 85 F . 3da t3 04. A ccor di n gl y, Sa n chez- A lvarez ha s fai l ed to est abli sh a br eac h of

the pl ea agr ee m entt hati s pl ai n, ob vi ous , oraf fec t ed hi s subs t ant i al r ig h ts . S ee Marek , 238 F. 3d at315. Sanc he z - Al va r e z a l s o a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ter r e d i n no tg r ant i ng h i m an adj u st m en tpu rsuan tt o U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2(b) based on hi s r ol e as a m i n or p a rti ci p a n t i n h i s offen se of co n victi on . T h e rev i sed p rese n ten ce re p ort refl ects t hatone of

Sanchez

- A lvar ez ’ s c ode fendant s st at ed t ha t S a n c hez- A lvar ez w as s e n t “ to o v e r s e e th e co c a i n e d e liv e r ya n dp o s s ib lyta k e p o s s e s s io n o f it.” Al t ho ughSa nc he z - Alvarez o bj e c t e d t o t he a c c ur ac y o f t hi s s t at e m e nt , he presented n o rebutt alevi den ce i n sup port of hi s obj ect i on . Th u s, t h e distr i ct cou rt d i dn ot cl ea rl y e rr i n relyi n g o n the rev i sed pr ese n ten ce re p ort. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lf

ord , 142 F . 3d 82 5 , 8 31-32 ( 5th C i r 1998 ) . I n add i t i on , Sa n chezA lvarez ackn ow l edg ed that h e agreed to h el p repa ckag e a l arge qu an t i t y of cocai n e, w h i ch w as a st ep l ead i n g t o i t s f u rt h er di st ribu t i on . B ecau se t h e di st ri ct c o u r t ’s fi n d in gth a t S a n c h e z -A lv a r e z w a s n o t a m in o rp a r tic ip a n t “ is p la u s ib le i n l i gh tof

t h e rec ord read as a w h ol e, ” w e con cl u de t h at the di st ri ctcou rtd i d n ot c l e a r l ye r rin fin d in gth a t h e w a s n o t e n tit le dto th is re d u c tio n . S ee Un i t ed St at e s v. Vi l lanu e va , 4 0 8 F .3d 1 9 3 , 2 0 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Sanc he z - Al va r e z f

ur t he ra r gue s t hat t he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y e nhan c i ng h is b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l b ytw o le v e ls fo rp o s s e s s io n o f ad a n g e r o u s w e a p o n . S ee U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1(b) ( 1) . S an chez- A lvarez assert s he w as un aw are of t h e presence o f a n yfi r e a r m s in th e h o u s e w h e r e th e c o c a in e w a s fo u n d . Ad e fe n d a n t ’sN o. 07- 40559

4 gu i del i n es of

fen se l evel m ay be en h an ced un der § 2D 1. 1(b) ( 1) if t h e possess i on o f afir e a r m b yaco c o n s p ir a t o rw a s re a s o n a b lyfo r e s e e a b le . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hernan d ez , 457 F. 3d 416, 423 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) . B ec ause t her e i s evi denc e that S an chez- A lvarez’ s c odefenda n tpossess ed a firea rm w h i l e he an d S an chezA lvarez w ere e n g a g e d i n repacka gi n g a l arge qu an t i t y of coc ai n e, t h e di st ri ct c o u r td id n o tc l e a r lye r rb yfi n d in gth a tS a n c h e z -A lv a r e z ’s c o d e fe n d a n t ’s p o s s e s s io n o f ad a n g e r o u s w e a p o n w a s rea son ab ly fo r e s e e a b le . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. T h om as, 1 2 0 F .3 d5 6 4 , 5 7 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); Un itedS ta tes v. Ca stillo , 77 F. 3d 148 0, 149 8 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) . F u rth erm ore, t h e rec ord ref l ect s t h at t h e di st ri ct c our tc om pl i ed w i t h R ul e 3 2 o f t he Feder alR ul es of C r i m i nalP roce d u re by c o n s id e r in gth e r e le v a n tfa c t o r s a n da d o p t in gth e r e v is e dp r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t ’s fa c ts re g a r d in gth e d a n g e r o u s w e a p o n e n h a n c e m e n t. SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. She r ba k , 9 50 F. 2d1 09 5, 1 09 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 92 ) . Acc o r di ngly, t he j udg m e nt o f t he d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.