United States v. Leigh

── United States v. Leigh ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 08, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-40317 Document: 69-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals No. 25-40317 Fifth Circuit consolidated with FILED No. 25-40326 June 8, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce _____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Tyrone Leigh, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC Nos. 6:24-CR-79-1, 6:22-CR-87-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Tyrone Leigh pleaded guilty to attempted escape from federal custody and possession of ammunition after a felony conviction. In this consolidated appeal, he challenges the sentences imposed. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40317 Document: 69-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2026 25-40317 c/w No. 25-40326 For the first time on appeal, he argues that the Government breached the plea agreements. Our review is for plain error. See United States v. Casillas, 853 F.3d 215, 217 (5th Cir. 2017). Because Leigh fails to establish an implicit promise by the Government to advocate for a full three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, he is unable to show that the Government breached the plea agreement. See United States v. Cluff, 857 F.3d 292, 298 (5th Cir. 2017). Likewise, assuming that the Government advocated for a sentence above the advisory guidelines, he has not met his burden to demonstrate that the Government breached the plea agreement by doing so. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 2020). Leigh further argues that the district court procedurally erred by declining to order that his federal sentences run concurrently with the anticipated sentences on pending state charges. We review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 780– 81 (5th Cir. 2011). As discussed, the Government did not breach the plea agreements, and there is no indication that Leigh’s additional criminal activity voided the plea agreements such that Leigh’s waiver of appeal does not apply. See United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002). The waivers are valid and enforceable because Leigh agreed to them knowingly and voluntarily, and they cover the sentencing issue that he now attempts to bring. See United States v. Williams, 949 F.3d 237, 239 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the sentences imposed by the district court and DISMISS Leigh’s remaining claim on appeal. 2