United States v. Betton

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60062
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cordarryl Antonio Betton, also known as Coco,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:19-CR-63-5

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Cordarryl Antonio Betton appeals his 135-month sentence for
possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He argues that the Government
breached the plea agreement by advocating for a sentencing enhancement
that disqualified him from the application of the safety valve. He also argues

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-60062 Document: 00515556395 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2020

No. 20-60062
2
that the sentence is unreasonable because the evidence did not support the
application of the enhancement or the denial of the benefit of the safety valve.
Because Betton did not argue that the Government breached the plea
agreement in the district court, we review this claim for plain error only. See
United States v. Cluff, 857 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2017). To establish plain
error, Betton must demonstrate (1) an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and
(3) that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
129, 135 (2009). If he satisfies these conditions, this court has the discretion
to correct the error and should do so if it “seriously affects the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Rosales-Mireles v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1905 (2018) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
We apply general principles of contract law in interpreting a plea
agreement and consider whether the Government’s conduct is consistent
with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement. United
States v. Pizzolato, 655 F.3d 403, 409 (5th Cir. 2011). The defendant has the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the underlying facts
that establish a breach. Id.
Betton fails to establish that the Government’s argument in support
of the firearm enhancement was inconsistent with a reasonable
understanding of the plea agreement. See Cluff, 857 F.3d at 300. Because he
fails to show that the Government breached the plea agreement, Betton
cannot satisfy the requirements of Puckett. 556 U.S. at 135. Betton’s appeal
waiver, which the Government invokes, bars his challenge to the
reasonableness of his sentence and the application of the enhancement. See
United States v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the
Government’s request to dismiss the appeal is granted. See United States v.
Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230 n.5 (5th Cir. 2006).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Case: 20-60062 Document: 00515556395 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2020