U.S. v. Umana

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Adan UMANA…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Oct 4, 2007

250 F. App'x 75 (5th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 07-10013, Summary Calendar.

October 4, 2007.

Susan B. Cowger, William C. McMurrey, U.S. Attorney's Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender's Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, USDC No. 3:06-CR-90-ALL.

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:[fn*] [fn*] 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Carlos Adan Umana (Umana) appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for securities fraud. Umana argues that the Government breached its promise in the plea agreement to recommend a sentence at the low end of the applicable guidelines range. Because Umana did not raise this issue in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Munoz, 408 F.3d 222, 226 (5th CIR.2005).

The Government's sentencing recommendation was included in his presentence report, and the Government's statements at sentencing were not contrary to the recommendation. See United States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 2001). We also reject Umana's assertion that the Government's statements triggered a "duty" to reiterate the recommendation at sentencing pursuant to our prior decisions in United States v. Soling, 205 F.3d 764, 767 n. 11 (5th Cir. 2000), and Reeves, 255 F.3d at 211. As Umana has not shown that the Government breached the plea agreement, he has not shown plain error.

AFFIRMED.