Case: 18-14479 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14479
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cr-80075-RLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM AELLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 15, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14479 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 2 of 3
William Aellis appeals his 97-month sentence for one count of distribution
of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1). Aellis
contends the Government breached its obligation in his plea agreement to
recommend a five-year sentence by offering evidence at the sentencing hearing
which it reasonably knew would cause the sentencing court to impose a longer
sentence. After review, 1 we affirm the district court.
There is no limitation placed upon the information that a district court may
receive for sentencing purposes concerning the background, character, and conduct
of a person convicted of a federal offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3661. The Supreme Court
has noted that, at sentencing, a district court has broad discretion to consider the
fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics.
Pepper v. United States,
562 U.S. 476, 480 (2011).
The Government did not breach Aellis’s plea agreement. Contrary to
Aellis’s assertion, the Government did not agree to “advocate” for a five-year
sentence on Aellis’s behalf—instead, it agreed to “recommend” a five-year
sentence to the court. See United States v. Copeland,
381 F.3d 1101, 1105 (11th
Cir. 2004) (stating to determine whether the government breached a plea
1
Whether the government has breached a plea agreement is reviewed de novo. United
States v. De La Garza,
516 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court’s factual
findings on the scope of the agreement will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous.
United States v. Copeland,
381 F.3d 1101, 1105 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
Case: 18-14479 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 3 of 3
agreement, the court must determine the scope of the government’s promises).
The Government met this promise by explicitly recommending a five-year
sentence at sentencing. Moreover, in the plea agreement, the Government
expressly reserved the right to inform the court of all facts pertinent to the
sentencing process, including all relevant information concerning the offenses
committed, whether charged or not, as well as concerning Aellis and his
background. The plea agreement also alerted Aellis the district court would be
required to calculate and consider his Guidelines range and could impose a
sentence of up to 20 years’ imprisonment. Aellis testified at his plea colloquy that
he understood the plea agreement was not binding on the district court and that it
could impose a higher sentence. Based on the foregoing, Aellis could not have
reasonably believed the Government breached its obligation to “recommend” a
five-year sentence by offering testimony about Aellis’s background and then
unambiguously recommending a five-year sentence. See United States v. Rewis,
969 F.2d 985, 988 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating a plea agreement is analyzed according
to the defendant’s reasonable understanding in entering into the plea agreement).
AFFIRMED.
3
