Court Opinion

ID: 9390195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 00:00:47.99473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:32.524817
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-30607         Document: 00516727773             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/26/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 21-30607
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                                 April 26, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Lilbear George,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:17-CR-201-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Lilbear George pleaded guilty pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal
   Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to using, carrying, brandishing, and
   discharging of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence resulting
   in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 924(j)(1), and 2. The district
   court denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-30607      Document: 00516727773            Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/26/2023

                                      No. 21-30607

   inter alia, 480-months’ imprisonment. George contends: the Government
   breached the plea agreement; and the court abused its discretion in denying
   his motion to withdraw his plea.
           An alleged breach of a plea agreement is reviewed de novo. E.g., United
   States v. Lewis, 476 F.3d 369, 387 (5th Cir. 2007). “A breach occurs if the
   Government’s conduct was inconsistent with a reasonable understanding of
   its obligations.” United States v. Casillas, 853 F.3d 215, 217 (5th Cir. 2017).
   Although the burden is on defendant to demonstrate by a preponderance of
   the evidence that the Government breached a plea agreement, the terms of
   the agreement are strictly construed against the Government as the drafter.
   E.g., id.
           In the plea agreement, the parties agreed, inter alia, that a “specific
   sentence range between three hundred sixty (360) months and four hundred
   eighty (480) months in prison [was] appropriate”; and the “sentence range
   [was] reasonable”.     George claims the Government breached the plea
   agreement by asserting during sentencing proceedings that a sentence at the
   bottom of the agreed-upon range was insufficient and that a sentence at the
   top of the range was necessary.
           George fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
   Government’s advocating for a sentence at the top of the agreed-upon range
   was inconsistent with his reasonable understanding of the plea agreement,
   particularly in the light of his advocating for a specific sentence at the bottom
   of that range; therefore, he fails to show the Government breached the
   agreement. See Casillas, 853 F.3d at 217.
           Although George maintains the Government also breached the plea
   agreement when he was compelled to testify against a codefendant, the issue
   is not before this court because the dispute occurred after George’s notice of
   appeal was filed, and he has not filed another. See Manrique v. United States,

                                           2
Case: 21-30607      Document: 00516727773          Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/26/2023

                                    No. 21-30607

   581 U.S. 116, 120 (2017) (declining to review challenge to restitution order
   which was imposed after notice of appeal was filed).
          Next, George contends that, on two bases, the court abused its
   discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea: it failed to
   adequately consider whether the Government breached the plea agreement;
   and he provided “a fair and just reason” for withdrawal. See Fed. R.
   Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B) (providing defendant may withdraw guilty plea prior
   to sentencing if he “can show a fair and just reason”).
          At sentencing, George moved to withdraw his plea only on the ground
   that the Government breached the plea agreement. He did not bring Rule
   11(d)(2)(B) to the court’s attention, nor did he mention the applicable Carr
   factors, referenced infra. See United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339 (5th Cir.
   1984). Nonetheless, we assume without deciding he preserved both bases
   regarding his withdrawal motion; therefore, review is for abuse of discretion.
   E.g., United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1013 (5th Cir. 2019).
          When the Government breaches a plea agreement, defendant is
   entitled to specific performance or withdrawal of his plea. E.g., United States
   v. Valencia, 985 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, after a plea is
   accepted, but before sentencing, a district court may allow withdrawal of a
   guilty plea if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason”. Fed. R.
   Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “The burden of establishing a fair and just reason for
   withdrawing a guilty plea remains at all times with the defendant.” Lord, 915
   F.3d at 1014 (citation omitted). To meet his burden, defendant must show,
   based on the totality of the circumstances, the factors provided in Carr
   support withdrawal. Id.
          First, as discussed above, no breach occurred. Therefore, George fails
   to show an abuse of discretion on that basis. Second, absent a breach by the
   Government, review of the record reveals George failed to meet his burden

                                          3
Case: 21-30607     Document: 00516727773           Page: 4   Date Filed: 04/26/2023

                                    No. 21-30607

   of showing withdrawal was otherwise permitted based on the seven Carr
   factors, such as whether innocence is claimed by defendant. See United States
   v. Strother, 977 F.3d 438, 443–47 (5th Cir. 2020) (applying Carr factors).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         4