IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-51283
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIA BELTRAN RAMOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-01-CR-65-ALL
March 12, 2003
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Beltran Ramos (“Beltran”) appeals the sentence
following her guilty plea conviction for harboring and concealing
a person from arrest in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071. She argues
that the Government violated her plea agreement by arguing at
sentencing that her base offense level should not be limited to 20
under the “harboring only” provision of U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1(a) because
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 01-51283
-2-
her relevant conduct included the underlying drug conspiracy.
While Beltran did object to the base offense level recommended in
the presentence report and adopted by the district court on the
ground that it was contrary to the plea agreement, she did not
argue below that the Government violated her plea agreement by
making this argument at sentencing. Accordingly, we review this
issue for plain error only. See United States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d
208, 210 n.2 (5th Cir. 2001).
Although Beltran may have believed that the plea
agreement prohibited the Government from arguing that her base
offense level should be based upon the underlying drug conspiracy,
she has not shown that this belief was reasonable. See United
States v. Cantu, 185 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1999). The plea
agreement specifically stated that Beltran would be sentenced in
accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines, which provide that
sentencing courts may consider relevant conduct from dismissed
charges in determining the base offense level. R. 1, 38; United
States v. Byrd, 898 F.2d 450, 451-452 (5th Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, Beltran’s benefit from the plea agreement was not
illusory. Because she pleaded guilty only to the harboring and
concealing charge, her base offense level was reduced by six
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1(a) and her statutory maximum sentence
was limited to five years. See 18 U.S.C. § 1071. Contrary to
Beltran’s contention, the section of the plea agreement concerning
sentencing specifically allowed the Government to make a wide range
No. 01-51283
-3-
of arguments at sentencing and did not limit the Government in any
manner. R. 1, 41. Accordingly, the Government did not breach the
plea agreement and there was no error, plain or otherwise. See
United States v. Chagra, 957 F.2d 192, 195 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.