Criminal Practice – Plea Agreement – Failure to Request a Below-Guidelines Sentence

The government did not plainly breach the terms of its plea agreement with Defendant during sentencing.

We affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court.

In 2021, Defendant was indicted on a single count of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture containing fentanyl. A superseding indictment charged Defendant with the same count. After initially pleading not guilty, Defendant negotiated a written plea agreement with the government. In the plea agreement, the government stipulated to positions on certain sentencing factors, while clarifying that the district court was not bound by the stipulations. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the government “reserve[d] the right to make a sentencing recommendation,” “to present any evidence and information” and “offer argument or rebuttal” at sentencing, and to respond to any motions or objections Defendant filed. The agreement also specified that the government could provide the U.S. Probation Office with “any evidence concerning relevant conduct.” The district court ultimately applied both an upward departure and a downward departure and eventually sentenced Defendant to 234 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Defendant argued that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to request a below-Guidelines sentence and by making arguments at sentencing that conflicted with the stipulations in the agreement. We held that the plea agreement did not require the government to seek a downward departure in the first place, so the government did not violate any terms of the agreement by filing both motions. We therefore concluded that the government did not breach the plea agreement by failing to request a below-Guidelines sentence.

Defendant also contended that the government plainly breached the plea agreement by relying on facts that conflicted with the Guidelines stipulations to support its argument for an upward departure or variance. We concluded that neither the language of Defendant’s plea agreement nor existing precedent establishes that the government’s alleged breach was “clear” or “obvious under current law.” We therefore concluded that the government did not commit plain error at Defendant’s sentencing.

Defendant’s plea agreement did not clearly prohibit the government’s conduct. The parties agreed to terms that gave the government broad discretion to present facts at sentencing and make an appropriate sentence recommendation. The agreement did not explicitly bar the government from referring to offense conduct that exceeded the scope of the drug-weight and “manager or supervisor” stipulations. Nor did it require the government to recommend a sentence within a particular Guidelines range. The agreement therefore left some “doubt” about the extent of the government’s ability to argue for an upward departure or variance based on conduct that went beyond the stipulations. While some of the government’s arguments certainly created tension with the two stipulations, the fact that the government did not clearly abandon the stipulations also weighs against finding plain error.

Affirmed.

United States v. William Dayshawn Wilson (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 001-156-25, 24 pp.) (Jasmine H. Yoon, J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville (James C. Dever III, J.) ARGUED: Raymond Curtis Tarlton, TARLTON LAW PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit