United States v. Adan Casillas
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5569
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Casillas pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute >50g methamphetamine and the Government agreed to recommend a role (safety‑valve) reduction.
- At sentencing the Assistant U.S. Attorney expressly confirmed the Government’s recommendation for a role reduction, stating it was based on information known when the plea was negotiated.
- The Government also advised the court it had learned additional information after making the recommendation and presented evidence and argument about Casillas’s deeper involvement.
- Casillas did not raise the alleged breach in the district court; he raised it for the first time on appeal and the court reviewed for plain error.
- Casillas argued the Government breached the plea agreement by undermining its own recommendation through testimony and evidence; the Government argued it complied with the plea and was permitted to disclose relevant facts to the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government breached the plea agreement by recommending a role reduction but later presenting evidence undermining that recommendation | Casillas: recommendation rendered meaningless because Government presented contrary evidence and argument, breaching the agreement | Government: it made and honored the recommendation and may disclose additional relevant facts to the court; no restriction in plea forbade this | No breach; no plain error — dismissal of appeal |
| Standard of review given failure to raise breach below | Casillas: (implicit) merits review should permit remedy for breach | Government: plain error review applies because issue not raised in district court | Court applied plain error review and found no error |
| Whether disclosure of additional factual information violates plea agreements | Casillas: disclosure negated the benefit of the recommendation | Government: plea did not prohibit disclosure; Government must not remain silent about factual inaccuracies | Disclosure permitted; not a breach |
| Effect of Government’s tone or reservation when making recommendation | Casillas: Government’s “begrudging” recommendation amounted to a breach | Government: no requirement on how enthusiastically recommendation is made absent agreement term | No requirement of enthusiasm; not a breach |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hebron, 684 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2012) (contract‑law approach; construe plea terms against Government)
- United States v. Loza‑Gracia, 670 F.3d 639 (5th Cir. 2012) (breach occurs when Government agrees to one thing then actively advocates another)
- United States v. Roberts, 624 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 2010) (defendant bears burden to prove breach by preponderance; appeals for breach permitted despite waiver)
- United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2014) (breach measured against reasonable understanding of Government's obligations)
- United States v. Block, 660 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir. Unit B Nov. 1981) (Government cannot agree to remain silent in face of factual inaccuracies; may disclose relevant facts)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error review four‑part test)
- United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453 (1985) (discusses role of Government reservations when making sentencing recommendations)