United States v. Donald Sargent , 571 F. App'x 834 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-13331 Date Filed: 07/08/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13331
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cr-10009-JEM-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD SARGENT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 8, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-13331 Date Filed: 07/08/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Donald Sargent appeals his sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment after
pleading guilty to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, pursuant to a plea
agreement. On appeal, he argues that the government breached the plea agreement
when it argued at sentencing that the amount of loss attributable to Sargent was
$75,215.36, rather than $24,000.00, because the plea agreement stated that he,
through his codefendant, only asserted $24,000 in false claims. Sargent concludes
that, because the government argued that the economic loss attributable to him as a
result of the offense exceeded $70,000.00, his offense level increased, resulting in
a greater guideline range and a higher sentence.
We review de novo the question of whether the government breached a plea
agreement. United States v. Horsfall, 552 F.3d 1275, 1281 (11th Cir. 2008). “The
government is bound by any material promises it makes to a defendant as part of a
plea agreement that induces the defendant to plead guilty.” Id. The question of a
breach is judged according to the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the
terms. Id. Further, “the Government breaches a plea agreement where the
Government introduces or supports facts at sentencing that contradict the facts
stipulated to in the agreement.” United States v. De La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266,
1269 (11th Cir. 2008).
The government did not breach the plea agreement because the plea
agreement did not contain any terms in which Sargent and the government
2
Case: 13-13331 Date Filed: 07/08/2014 Page: 3 of 3
stipulated that the amount of loss attributable to him was $24,000.00. Rather, the
plea agreement stated that Sargent agreed to plead guilty to wire fraud for asserting
fraudulent claims amounting to $24,000.00. However, Sargent ultimately received
funds from GCCF that exceeded $70,000.00, and the plea agreement stated that the
government reserved the right to inform the court and the probation office of all
facts pertinent to the sentencing process; actual loss was pertinent to the sentencing
process. Thus, the government did not introduce facts at sentencing that
contradicted the facts stipulated to in the agreement because the agreement only
stated that Sargent had submitted claims for $24,000 and did not discuss the actual
loss suffered. See De La Garza, 516 F.3d at 1269. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3