Court Opinion

ID: 9891587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 00:00:32.54435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:43:27.463184
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40120        Document: 00516935580             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

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

                                     ____________                                        FILED
                                                                                     October 18, 2023
                                      No. 23-40120                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                       Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Elizabeth Ayala Leal,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:19-CR-1714-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Elizabeth Ayala Leal pleaded guilty to a single count of wire fraud. In
   relevant part, she was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment, a term of
   supervised release that included a condition prohibiting her from unapproved

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40120      Document: 00516935580          Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                    No. 23-40120

   future employment as a home health worker or in a profession allowing access
   to personal identifying information, and $428,642.57 in restitution.
          On appeal, Leal argues the Government breached the plea agreement.
   In that agreement, Leal agreed to plead guilty to a single count of wire fraud
   and to pay $344,642.57 in restitution; the Government agreed to recommend
   a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and to dismiss the
   remaining counts of the indictment. Leal argues that the Government
   breached the agreement by arguing against her acceptance of responsibility,
   for the employment condition, and for a higher amount of restitution.
          Although Leal objected in the district court to various aspects of her
   sentence, she did not argue that the Government breached the plea
   agreement. See United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009).
   Thus, plain error review applies, and she must show an error that is clear or
   obvious and that affects her substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States,
   556 U.S. 129, 135-36 (2009). While the burden is on the 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. United States v. Casillas, 853 F.3d 215,
   217 (5th Cir. 2017). “A breach occurs if the Government’s conduct was
   inconsistent with a reasonable understanding of its obligations.” Id.
          Leal’s argument regarding acceptance of responsibility is unavailing
   because the Government complied with its obligation under the plea
   agreement. See id. Her argument regarding the supervised release condition
   also fails because it is not consistent with a reasonable understanding of the
   Government’s obligations under the agreement. See id. As to the restitution
   issue, it is at the very least subject to reasonable dispute whether the
   Government breached any term of the plea agreement, and Leal therefore
   fails to demonstrate a clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135;

                                         2
Case: 23-40120      Document: 00516935580          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                    No. 23-40120

   United States v. Smith, 430 F. App’x 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v.
   Guerrero-Robledo, 565 F.3d 940, 946 (5th Cir. 2009).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3