IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10007
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
BALDEMAR GONZALEZ
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:01-CR-130-2
--------------------
November 13, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Proceeding pro se, Baldemar Gonzalez appeals his guilty-plea
conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute
cocaine and aiding and abetting in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Gonzalez has filed a
motion to supplement the record and a motion for leave to file an
out-of-time reply to the Government’s opposition to his motion to
supplement the record. These motions are DENIED. Gonzalez has
also filed a motion to extend the time for filing a reply brief
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
and a motion to have the reply brief considered timely filed due
to mitigating circumstances. These motions are GRANTED.
Gonzalez argues that the district court erred in attributing
3.5 kilograms of cocaine to him because the negotiated sale of
that amount was never consummated. The district court did not
clearly err in finding that the negotiated, but unconsummated,
sale of 3.5 kilograms of cocaine by Gonzalez to an undercover
officer was a separate transaction from the transaction which led
to Gonzalez’s arrest. See United States v. Morris, 46 F.3d 410,
422 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, a de novo review of the record
reveals no error in the district court’s application of the
sentencing guidelines to the facts of Gonzalez’s case. See
United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279, 286 (5th Cir. 2002).
Gonzalez also asserts, for the first time on appeal, that
the Government breached the plea agreement in his case by
advocating that he be held accountable for a drug quantity higher
than that stipulated to in the factual resume which formed the
basis for the guilty plea. Gonzalez has not shown that his
interpretation of the plea agreement was reasonable; thus he has
not shown plain error with respect to this claim. See United
States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.