United States v. James Marvin Lovett , 601 F. App'x 787 ( 2015 )

Case: 13-14715 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14715
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cr-00068-CEH-KRS-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES MARVIN LOVETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 2, 2015)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Lovett appeals his sentence of 151 months’ imprisonment for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in
Case: 13-14715 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 2 of 6
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 846. On appeal, Lovett argues that
the government breached his plea agreement when it filed an information, pursuant
to 21 U.S.C. § 851, that increased his mandatory-minimum sentence to 20 years’
imprisonment. After careful review, we affirm.
“Whether the Government breached a plea agreement is a question of law, to
be reviewed de novo.” United States v. De La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th
Cir. 2008). However, if the defendant fails to raise the issue before the district
court, we review only for plain error. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 133-
36, 143 (2009); De La Garza, 516 F.3d at 1269. To show plain error, the defendant
must show (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights.
United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir.2007). If the defendant
satisfies the three conditions, we may exercise our discretion to recognize the error
if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. To be plain, “the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than
subject to reasonable dispute.” Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. The Supreme Court has
said that the second prong of plain-error review “will often have some ‘bite’ in
plea-agreement cases” because “[n]ot all breaches will be clear or obvious,” since
“the scope of the [g]overnment’s commitments will on occasion be open to doubt.”
Id. at 143. “For an error to affect substantial rights, in most cases it means that the
error must have been prejudicial: It must have affected the outcome of the district
2
Case: 13-14715 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 3 of 6
court proceedings.” De La Garza, 516 F.3d at 1269 (quotation omitted). In the
context of the government’s alleged breach of a plea agreement, the question of
prejudice does not depend on whether or not the defendant would have entered into
the agreement and pleaded guilty, but instead on whether the defendant’s ultimate
sentence was influenced by the government’s breach. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 141-42
& n.4; De La Garza, 516 F.3d at 1270-71.
“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of
the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration,
such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262
(1971). “Whether the government violated the agreement is judged according to
the defendant’s reasonable understanding at the time he entered his plea.” United
States v. Boatner, 966 F.2d 1575, 1578 (11th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we “must
decide whether the government’s actions are inconsistent with what the defendant
reasonably understood when he entered his guilty plea.” United States v. Al-Arian,
514 F.3d 1184, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). Moreover, because the
sentencing court is not bound by the parties’ agreements or recommendations,
whether the government breached a plea agreement depends upon the
government’s conduct, not the conduct of the district court. United States v.
Johnson, 132 F.3d 628, 630 (11th Cir. 1998).
3
Case: 13-14715 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 4 of 6
We “must use objective standards to determine the disputed terms of a plea
agreement.” In re Arnett, 804 F.2d 1200, 1202 (11th Cir. 1986). In interpreting a
plea agreement, “a hyper-technical reading of the written agreement and a rigidly
literal approach in the construction of the language, should not be accepted.”
United States v. Rewis, 969 F.2d 985, 988 (11th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). In
addition, “the written agreement should be viewed ‘against the background of
negotiations’ and should not be read to ‘directly contradic[t] [an] oral
understanding.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quotation omitted). “[A] plea
agreement that is ambiguous must be read against the government.” Id. (quotation
omitted). However, when a plea agreement is unambiguous, we will not read into
the agreement terms that were not agreed upon with specificity, even when the
defendant misunderstood the agreement. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d at 1191-93; In re
Grand Jury Proceedings (Perdue), 819 F.2d 984, 986-87 (11th Cir. 1987). “Only
where the language of the agreement is ambiguous, or where government
overreaching is alleged does the court consider parole evidence,” such as a plea
hearing transcript. Raulerson v. United States, 901 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir.
1990) (involving a habeas corpus petition).
Here, Lovett argues -- for the first time on appeal -- that the government
breached his plea agreement when it filed its § 851 information four days after the
plea agreement was filed, thereby eliminating the benefit that he expected to
4
Case: 13-14715 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 5 of 6
receive from the government’s agreement to recommend up to a three-level
reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. We are
unpersuaded. Among other things, Lovett has not demonstrated error under the
first prong of plain-error review. Like the plea agreements in Al-Arian and Perdue,
Lovett’s plea agreement makes no mention of the government action he now
complains about on appeal -- in this case, the government’s filing of a § 851
information. In addition, like the plea agreement in Al-Arian, Lovett’s plea
agreement contains an integration clause providing that the written plea agreement
constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and no other promises,
agreements, or representations exist. Thus, there is no ambiguity regarding the §
851 information because there is no mention of it in the plea agreement.
Instead, the plea agreement unambiguously obligates the government to
recommend up to a three-level downward adjustment in Lovett’s offense level for
acceptance of responsibility in certain circumstances, and Lovett received that
reduction. Moreover, the plea agreement specifically says that Lovett faced a
mandatory-minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, which would only apply
upon the filing of a § 851 information. Accordingly, because the plea agreement is
unambiguous and contains no prohibition against the government filing a § 851
information, the government did not breach the plea agreement by doing so. In any
event, even if the plea agreement were ambiguous on the issue of whether the
5
Case: 13-14715 Date Filed: 02/02/2015 Page: 6 of 6
government would file a § 851 information, and this ambiguity were construed
against the government, Lovett has not shown that any error in filing the
information was plain.
AFFIRMED.
6