Court Opinion

ID: 9907294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 01:00:29.29683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:21.722172
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10360        Document: 00516990074             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/05/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10360
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               December 5, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Ping Express US, L.L.C.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:20-CR-122-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Ping Express US, LLC (Ping Express) pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
   plea agreement, to one count of failure to maintain an effective anti-money
   laundering program and one count of operating an unlicensed money
   transmitting business, in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5318(h) and 5322, and 18
   U.S.C. §§ 1960(a) and (b)(1)(A). Although the parties agreed in the plea

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10360      Document: 00516990074           Page: 2     Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                     No. 23-10360

   agreement that the appropriate sentence was five years of probation for each
   offense, at sentencing, the Government supported a more lenient sentence of
   two years of probation for each count. The district court accepted the plea
   agreement and imposed concurrent terms of two years of probation. Ping
   Express raises three claims on appeal.
          First, it argues that the Government breached the plea agreement by
   advocating for a lesser sentence than the one outlined in the agreement. Ping
   Express did not raise this challenge in the district court, and thus, we review
   this claim for plain error only. See United States v. Tapia, 946 F.3d 729, 733-
   34 (5th Cir. 2020). Under the plain error standard, Ping Express must show
   a breach of the plea agreement, that the breach constitutes clear or obvious
   error, and that the error affects its substantial rights. See id. at 734. To prove
   an effect on its substantial rights, Ping Express “must show a reasonable
   probability that, but for the error, [it] would have received a lesser sentence.”
   Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Because Ping Express
   received a lesser sentence than that outlined in the plea agreement, it cannot
   show any effect on its substantial rights by the alleged breach and thus cannot
   establish plain error.
          Second, Ping Express contends that the guilty plea was not supported
   by a sufficient factual basis and thus the district court erred under Federal
   Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. This claim is also reviewed for plain error
   because the issue was not raised below. See United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d
   308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010). Here, a defendant “must show a reasonable
   probability that, but for the error, [it] would not have entered the plea.”
   United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004); see also United
   States v. Castro-Trevino, 464 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2006). Ping Express
   makes no argument that there is a reasonable probability that but for the
   alleged error in the factual basis, it would not have pleaded guilty. Nor is

                                           2
Case: 23-10360      Document: 00516990074            Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                      No. 23-10360

   there any evidence in the record to support such an assertion. Thus, Ping
   Express fails to establish plain error as to this claim.
          Finally, Ping Express contends that the district court erred by not
   continuing the sentencing hearing. Regardless of whether this claim is
   precluded by the appellate waiver provision that the government enforces,
   Ping Express cannot prevail. Ping Express does not point to any place in the
   record where a continuance was actually requested (and denied). But, even
   if the issue was preserved, “trial judges have broad discretion in deciding
   whether to grant continuances,” United States v. Correa-Ventura, 6 F.3d
   1070, 1074 (5th Cir. 1993), and this Court “will ‘reverse a denial [of a
   continuance] only when the district court has abused its discretion and the
   defendant can establish that he suffered serious prejudice,’” United States v.
   Sheperd, 27 F.4th 1075, 1085 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Rounds,
   749 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2014)). Ping Express conceded there was no
   prejudice at trial, and in its briefing offers no argument that it was prejudiced.
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           3