United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting and citing Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (alteration in original)).

United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting and citing Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (alteration in original)).

The Government relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Puckett and this court's decision in United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2014), cases in which the denials of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction were affirmed because the courts found that the circumstances demonstrated it was "likely [that the defendant] would not have obtained [the] benefits [of the plea agreement] in any event," regardless of any breach. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d at 414 (quoting Puckett, 556 U.S. at 142, 129 S.Ct. 1423).

We review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134, 143 (2009); United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014). We look to whether the Government's conduct was consistent with the parties' reasonable understanding of the agreement.

To determine whether a plea agreement was breached a federal court must "consider whether the government's conduct is consistent with the defendant's reasonable understanding of the agreement." United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Barnes, 730 F.3d 456, 457 (5th Cir. 2013).

To establish plain error, "a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affected the defendant's substantial rights." United States v. Hinojosa , 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014). The third step of the analysis may be satisfied by showing "a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different."

Nevarez-Morales argues that the judicial drug quantity finding above five kilograms triggered § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and therefore subjected him to that statute's 10-year minimum sentence in violation of Alleyne. Nevarez-Morales's argument is foreclosed by United States v. Hinojosa, where the appellant took a practically identical tack. 749 F.3d 407, 412-13 (5th Cir. 2014). In Hinojosa, the defendant was charged with, and pled guilty to, possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana.

We review for plain error Felts's claim that, under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), the drug quantity found by the district court based on the presentence report was a fact that should have been found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014). Felts contends that the district court's factfinding effectively raised his statutory minimum sentence from five years to ten and violated the holding in Alleyne. Felts does not allege and the record does not indicate that the district court concluded that a 10-year statutory minimum sentence applied to him.

Because Hagin did not object on this basis in the district court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014). Hagin does not allege and there is no indication in the record that the district court concluded that a 10-year statutory minimum sentence was applicable in his case. Rather, the district court imposed a sentence within the guidelines range based on relevant conduct, and the facts did not have to be admitted by Hagin or found by a jury.

Because Monjaras-Pichardo did not object on this basis in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014). The district court imposed a sentence within the guidelines range based on relevant conduct, and the facts did not have to be admitted by Monjaras-Pichardo or found by a jury.