
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fausto BECERRA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-41612 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed January 11, 2018
    John A. Reed, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Edward A. Stapleton, III, Esq., Staple-ton & Stapleton, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, Fausto Becerra was sentenced, below the guidelines range, to 90 months of imprisonment based on the district court’s finding that he was accountable for 14.97 kilograms of cocaine. On appeal, Becerra contends — for the first time — that the Government breached the plea agreement, which inadvertently stated that he was instead accountable for 19.99 kilograms of marijuana. Because Becerra did not raise this challenge in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Williams, 821 F.3d 656, 657 (5th Cir. 2016); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Becerra’s argument is wholly concluso-ry; he fails to meaningfully address the requisite plain error factors or cite any relevant authority. See United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002) (explaining that the defendant has the burden to show each prong of the plain error test). Consequently, he has abandoned the challenge to his sentence. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006). In any event, we would not find reversible plain error because the record reflects that the Government’s conduct was consistent with Be-cerra’s reasonable understanding of the plea agreement. United States v. Purser, 747 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2014); Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm, R. 47.5.4.
     