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.

On the other hand, because Garza failed in district court to object to the Government's claimed breach, review is limited to plain error. E.g., United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2014). Under that standard, Garza must show a forfeited plain error (clear or obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. E.g., Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

As far as this court can tell, and Roe has not cited any precedent to the contrary, every court that has confronted the issue has stated that a knowing and voluntary guilty plea to an indictment which includes a mandatory-minimum-inducing drug-quantity element subjects a defendant to that mandatory minimum sentence. See, e.g., Davis v. United States , 817 F.3d 319, 326 (7th Cir. 2016) ; United States v. Caballero , 672 F. App'x 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2016) ; United States v. Jefferson , 791 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2015) ; United States v. Etienne , 772 F.3d 907, 923 (1st Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Hinojosa , 749 F.3d 407, 412 (5th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Bradley , 581 F. App'x 249, 253 (4th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Heard , 561 F. App'x 873, 877 (11th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Johnson , 732 F.3d 577, 584 (6th Cir. 2013). As these courts have noted, such a rule is entirely consistent with the line of Supreme Court cases that ultimately spawned the decision in Alleyne .

Because Vann failed to object to the Government's alleged breach in the district court, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411, 413 (5th Cir. 2014). In resolving whether a breach occurred, this court considers whether the Government's conduct was "consistent with the defendant's reasonable understanding of the agreement."

"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

"[Alleyne] 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." United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 412 (5th Cir. 2014). In United States v. Romans, 823 F.3d 299, 316 (5th Cir. 2016), the Fifth Circuit noted that Alleyne did not address discretionary guideline enhancements that are determined by a court.

As the Fifth Circuit has explained, "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 Guidelines, must now be made by jurors." United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 412 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 257 (2005) and Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2169). Here, Movant was not facing a mandatory minimum sentence.

Likewise, the resulting offense-level increases pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2D1.1(b)(1) and 2D1.1(b)(3) did not violate Alleyne where they did not increase Petitioner's statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2014) ("Guideline ranges based on relevant conduct and other factors will often extend far above a statutory minimum. As a matter of simple logic, those ranges may even exceed a higher statutory minimum applicable to a related offense.

To determine whether a plea agreement was breached we 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). The Supreme Court of Mississippi has also held that "[q]uestions concerning the construction of contracts are questions of law that are committed to the court rather than questions of fact committed to the fact[-]finder."

To determine whether a plea agreement was breached we 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). The Supreme Court of Mississippi has also held that "[q]uestions concerning the construction of contracts are questions of law that are committed to the court rather than questions of fact committed to the fact[-]finder."