United States v. Solis

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41299
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GILBERTO JUAN SOLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-99-CR-512-1
- - - - - - - - - -
October 18, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gilberto Juan Solis appeals his conviction following a
guilty plea for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
over 100 kilograms of marijuana. Solis argues that the
Government breached the terms of the plea agreement because it
orally recommended a sentence of 60 months but then was silent
when the presentence report (PSR) recommended a sentencing range
between 84 and 105 months. Solis also complains that the
Government opposed his motion for a downward departure for being
a minor or minimal participant.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-41299
-2-
Solis did not object to the Government’s actions at
sentencing; therefore, they are reviewed for plain error. See
United States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1301 (5th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Goldfaden, 959 F.2d 1324, 1327 (5th Cir. 1992).
The Government did not breach the terms of the plea agreement.
It recommended a three-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility and further recommended sentencing at an offense
level of 23. The sentencing court followed these
recommendations. The Government was not obliged by the terms of
the agreement to object to the application of the sentencing
range recommended in the PSR. See United States v. Cantu, 185
F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1999). Nor was the Government precluded
from objecting to a downward adjustment in the offense level that
would have put the offense level below 23. Id. Accordingly, the
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --