See United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 2000) (explaining that the “decision in Apprendi was specifically limited to facts which increase the penalty beyond the statutory maximum and does not invalidate a court's factual finding for the purposes of determining the applicable Sentencing Guidelines.”); United States v. Elwood, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20265, at *12 (E.D. La. Feb. 6, 2024); see also United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 412 (5th Cir. 2014) (explaining that fact finding on relevant conduct, to the extent it increases the discretionary sentencing range for a district judge under the sentencing guidelines, need not be made by a jury). Thus, Apprendi does not represent a change in the law that result in a gross sentencing disparity in Petitioner's case.

These cases do not apply to facts that increase a defendant's sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 412 (5th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “the 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 [sentencing g]uidelines, must now be made by jurors”). Further, as in Hinojosa, nothing in the record suggests that Elwood's sentence was the result of the Court's conclusion that a mandatory minimum or statutory maximum applied.

"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.