U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2018

United States v. Jordan Bautista-Gunter

United States v. Jordan Bautista-Gunter
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 2, 2018 · Reavley, Prado, Graves
710 F. App'x 636

Counsel

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mark Randolph Stelmach,. Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant .

United States v. Jordan Bautista-Gunter

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jordan Jericho Bautista-Gunter appeals his guilty plea convictions for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and carrying a weapon on an aircraft. He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the Government breached its promise, contained in his plea agreement, that it would not oppose his receipt of a U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.

We need not decide whether the Government breached the plea agreement because it cured any breach by making sufficiently clear, both in its amended sentencing memorandum and during Bau-tista-Gunter’s sentencing hearing, its intention to remain silent regarding whether Bautista-Gunter should receive the § 3E1.1 adjustment. See United States v. Purser, 747 F.3d 284, 293-94 (5th Cir. 2014). Although the Government referred during the sentencing hearing to the position expressed in its original sentencing memorandum, the Government’s expressions of its intention to remain silent in accordance with the plea agreement were not “equivocal or half-hearted.” Id. at 293 n.44.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.