Court Opinion

ID: 9901990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 20:00:28.691197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.747173
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40119        Document: 00516976788             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/22/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 23-40119                              FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                    November 22, 2023
                                    ____________                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Alejandro Leal,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:19-CR-1714-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Alejandro Leal appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction
   for wire fraud. He argues that the Government breached the plea agreement
   by highlighting evidence supporting an amount of restitution greater than the
   amount contemplated in the plea agreement. He also contends that the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40119      Document: 00516976788           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/22/2023

                                     No. 23-40119

   district court erred by applying the enhancement for abuse of trust and
   imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.
          “Whether the Government has breached the plea agreement is a legal
   question that this Court reviews de novo.” United States v. Purser, 747 F.3d
   284, 290 (5th Cir. 2014). Because Leal did not object to the purported breach
   in the district court, our review is for plain error. To establish plain error,
   Leal must demonstrate (1) an error (2) that is clear or obvious and (3) that
   affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
   (2009). If he meets the conditions above, we have the discretion to correct
   the error but should do so only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity
   or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (alteration omitted).
          We apply general principles of contract law in interpreting a plea
   agreement and “consider whether the government’s conduct is consistent
   with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement.” United
   States v. Cluff, 857 F.3d 292, 298 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). The defendant has “the burden of demonstrating the
   underlying facts that establish breach by a preponderance of the evidence.”
   United States v. Roberts, 624 F.3d 241, 246 (5th Cir. 2010).
          The written plea agreement reflects that Leal agreed to pay
   $344,642.57 in restitution. The Government did not make any agreements
   regarding the restitution amount or the final sentence. The agreement did
   not explicitly require the Government to argue for any restitution amount or
   prevent the Government from arguing for restitution above the stated
   amount.
          The Government’s request for the district court to consider the victim
   impact statements was appropriate given that crime victims have a right to be
   reasonably heard at sentencing.         See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4).        The
   Government never advocated for the restitution amount requested by the

                                          2
Case: 23-40119      Document: 00516976788           Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/22/2023

                                     No. 23-40119

   victims and instead recognized the amount of restitution stated in the plea
   agreement and agreed that it was “sticking with” the plea agreement. These
   statements were not inconsistent with a reasonable understanding of the
   Government’s obligations in the plea agreement. See Cluff, 857 F.3d at 298;
   United States v. Pizzolato, 655 F.3d 403, 410-11 (5th Cir. 2011). Moreover,
   the district court’s refusal to follow recommendations in a plea agreement is
   not a breach by the Government. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257,
   262 (1971). Leal has failed to establish that the Government breached the
   plea agreement. See Roberts, 624 F.3d at 246.
          Leal next contends that the district court erred when it applied an
   enhancement for abuse of trust. Section 3B1.3 provides for a two-level
   increase if “the defendant abused a position of public or private trust . . . in a
   manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the
   offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. “We review the district court’s interpretation
   and application of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear
   error.” United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 2017). Leal
   must demonstrate plain error because he did object to the enhancement in
   the district court. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          Although Leal contends that he was not in a position of trust because
   he did not work in the health care field, he obtained a living trust over one of
   the victims and designated himself as trustee. He then used the trust
   documents to open a bank account and had the victim’s disability and
   retirement funds directly deposited into the account. Only a person with
   substantial discretionary judgment and minimal supervision could have taken
   the amount of funds that Leal took and spent over the course of several years
   without being discovered. See United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152, 166 (5th
   Cir. 2009). The district court’s finding that Leal occupied a position of trust
   is plausible in light of the record as a whole. See Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 165.

                                           3
Case: 23-40119      Document: 00516976788           Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/22/2023

                                     No. 23-40119

          Finally, our substantive reasonableness review of Leal’s sentence is
   guided by the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United
   States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 706 (5th Cir. 2006). A sentence above the
   advisory guidelines range is substantively unreasonable if it “(1) does not
   account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives
   significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear
   error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” Id. at 708.
          Contrary to Leal’s assertion, the district court did not reference the
   occupation of Leal’s wife as a reason to upwardly vary from the guideline
   range. The district court instead referenced her occupation in connection
   with the imposition of a condition of supervised release. Leal has not shown
   that his 60-month sentence was based on an improper or irrelevant factor or
   that it is otherwise substantively unreasonable. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 708.
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                          4