
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rebecca Lee RABON, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-20603 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 12/06/2016
    
      John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Riley Friesell, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Rebecca Lee Ra-bón pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, five counts of health care fraud, and aiding and abetting. She was sentenced at the bottom of the guidelines range to a total term of imprisonment of 151 months; concurrent three-year periods of supervised release were imposed; and she was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,297,644.71.

Rabón contends that the Government breached the plea agreement by opposing her objection to the lack of an adjustment in her sentencing guidelines offense level for acceptance of responsibility. She concedes that our review is for plain error. See United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 411, 413 (5th Cir. 2014). To establish plain error, Rabón must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If she makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

“The Government must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of its promises in a plea agreement.” United States v. Harper, 643 F.3d 135, 139 (5th Cir. 2011). General principles of contract law are applied in interpreting the terms of a plea agreement. United States v. Long, 722 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 2013). In resolving if a breach occurred, we consider whether the Government’s conduct was “consistent with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement.” Hinojosa, 749 F.3d at 413 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The probation officer did not conclude that Rabón had accepted responsibility and did not recommend an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the conditions that would have triggered the Government’s obligation not to oppose Rabon’s objection to the lack of such an adjustment was not met. See United States v. Mejia, No. 93-2611, 1994 WL 243287, at *1 (5th Cir. May 19, 1994) (unpublished); 5th Cíe. R. 47.5.3. Rabón has not shown that there was a clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. Neither has she shown that her substantial rights were affected. See id. The judgment is

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     