United States v. Roman Gonzales ( 2020 )

Case: 19-50820 Document: 00515546504 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/31/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 31, 2020
No. 19-50820
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Roman Gabriel Gonzales, also known as Roman, also known as
Gabe Roman, also known as Roman Gonzales, also known as
Roman G. Gonzales,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:17-CR-391-18
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Roman Gabriel Gonzales pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement,
to interfering with commerce by threats or violence and conspiring to
distribute methamphetamine and heroin, and the district court sentenced
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-50820 Document: 00515546504 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/31/2020
No. 19-50820
him below the applicable guidelines range to concurrent terms of 216 months
of imprisonment. Gonzales contends that the Government breached a
provision of his plea agreement—in which provision Gonzales acknowledges
that the district court would consider the Sentencing Guidelines and
applicable policy statements in determining his sentence—because the
Government proffered, and the district court relied upon, what he
characterizes as unreliable evidence to support the drug-quantity calculation
used to determine his U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) base offense level. Gonzales
presses this argument despite both that the provision at issue says nothing
regarding any Governmental obligation and that the Government explicitly
reserved its rights to bring its version of the facts relevant to sentencing as
part of the plea agreement.
Although Gonzales waived his right to appeal his sentences as part of
his plea agreement, that waiver does not preclude our consideration of his
breach argument. See United States v. Cluff, 857 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir.
2017). As the party alleging a breach of the plea agreement, Gonzales must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the underlying facts establish
a breach. See United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002).
When determining whether the Government violated the terms of a plea
agreement, we consider “whether the government’s conduct is consistent
with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement.” Cluff, 857
F.3d at 298 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In the district court, Gonzales contended that the Government had
breached his plea agreement by proffering evidence not otherwise mentioned
in the record and of which counsel was previously unaware; as he did not
raise his current breach argument in the district court, we review only for
plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 133-35 (2009); United
States v. Kirkland, 851 F.3d 499, 502-03 (5th Cir. 2017). Because Gonzales
does not even attempt to show plain error, his claim necessarily fails. See
2
Case: 19-50820 Document: 00515546504 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/31/2020
No. 19-50820
Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. In any event, Gonzales’s baseless interpretation of
the plea agreement is wholly unreasonable, and his argument is patently
meritless. See Cluff, 857 F.3d at 298.
AFFIRMED.
3