United States v. Espinoza
United States v. Espinoza
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40022 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GENARO ESPINOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-99-CR-494-3 -------------------- November 1, 2000
Before DAVIS, JONES and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this direct criminal appeal, Genaro Espinoza argues that
the Government breached their plea agreement by failing to make
an affirmative recommendation at sentencing that his offense
level be adjusted for his minor role in the offense. Espinoza
acknowledges that he failed to raise this issue in the district
court and, thus, the alleged error is subject to review for plain
error.
The record reflects that the district court was aware that
the plea agreement provided that the Government would recommend
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 00-40022 -2-
that Espinoza’s offense level be adjusted for his minor-role in
the offense. The Government gave no indication to the district
court that it was opposing a reduction of Espinoza’s offense
level on that basis. However, the record reflects that the
district court made an independent determination that Espinoza
was not entitled to the adjustment based on the nature of his
participation in the offense.
Espinoza has not shown that an affirmative recommendation by
the Government would have had an effect on the district court’s
decision regarding the role adjustment. See United States v.
Hooten,
942 F.2d 878, 883-84(5th Cir. 1991). Because Espinoza
has not shown that the Government’s failure to make an
affirmative recommendation affected his substantial rights, the
Government’s conduct was not sufficient to rise to the level of
plain error. See United States v. Calverley,
37 F.3d 160, 162-64(5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished