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."

In Alleyne v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2155, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), the court extended this logic to facts that increase the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The Court in Alleyne did not address discretionary guideline enhancements, and as this court noted in United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir.2014), “[t]he Alleyne opinion did not imply that the traditional fact-finding on relevant conduct, to the extent it increases the discretionary sentencing range for a district judge under the Guidelines, must now be made by jurors.” Moseby was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms of marijuana.

To determine whether a plea agreement was breached, the court considers "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). Here, the terms of the written plea agreement provide that Hernandez understood that any estimate he might have received about how the guidelines might be applied to his case was not a promise.

We review his contention for plain error. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2014). Witcher's claim of a Government breach is not plainly supported by the record or a reasonable interpretation of the plea agreement.

Testimony can support the verdict if it demonstrates that the amount of drugs attributed to the defendant meets the statutory threshold. See, e.g., United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 415 (5th Cir. 2014). The jury can find a drug quantity by extrapolating from the testimony.

"If those requirements are met, the reviewing court may in its discretion remedy the error only if it (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings." United States v. Hinojosa , 749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014). If the unpreserved error does not meet this demanding plain error standard, the court does not have authority to correct it. Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.b. Applicable Law and Analysis

In determining whether a breach occurred, this court decides "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) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant's subjective belief about the agreement's terms may not constitute a reasonable understanding and may not be sufficient to establish a breach.

Estrada has not established a breach of the plea agreement on either point. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2014). Because Estrada's issues for appeal are clearly barred by the valid waiver, the appeal is dismissed.

The Government concedes that Gonzalez-Loya meets the standard for plain error and does not oppose remand for resentencing. Cf. United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2014) ("On occasions when the PSR or district court mistakenly applies a higher statutory minimum sentence, resentencing often occurs as a matter of course because the Government concedes the error."). We agree.

Neither Apprendi nor Alleyne applies to sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 412–13 (5th Cir.2014). Therefore, his argument is without merit and we find no error.