Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick ELLIOT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-05
Citations: 183 F. App'x 469
Docket Number: No. 05-40230
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick ELLIOT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 183
Pages: 469–471

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick ELLIOT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40230.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 5, 2006.
Arnold Augur Spencer, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Russell Wilson, II, Law Offices of Russell Wilson II, Dallas, TX, for Defendant Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Elliot appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to damage a protected computer. He claims: the Government breached the plea agreement by recommending a "particular" term of imprisonment; and he was sentenced in contravention of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
Whether the Government breached the plea agreement is reviewed only for plain error because Elliot did not object in district court. E.g., United States v. Munoz, 408 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir.2005). The Government reserved the right to oppose any sentence that, in its opinion, was outside the Sentencing Guidelines, and defense counsel's request that Elliot receive only six months of shock incarceration was prohibited both by the Guidelines and the applicable statute. See U.S.S.G. § 5F1.7, cmt. a; 18 U.S.C. § 4046(a). Elliot has shown no error, plain or otherwise.
Elliot's plea agreement contained an appeal waiver; however, the Government's failure to enforce that provision renders it nonbinding, permitting our reaching the Booker claim. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir.2006). That claim was preserved in district court. The district court imposed a discretionary, alternative sentence identical to the one it had imposed under the mandatory Guidelines, to become effective should the Supreme Court declare the Guidelines unconstitutional. Therefore, the Government has carried its burden of proving the Booker error harmless. See United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 314 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 810, 163 L.Ed.2d 637 (2005).
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
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.