USCA11 Case: 22-12415 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 05/25/2023 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12415
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAVANNAH SYMONE DUNCAN,
Defendant- Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00046-TPB-KCD-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12415 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 05/25/2023 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12415
Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Savannah Duncan appeals her total sentence of 24 months’
imprisonment, imposed after she pled guilty to 3 counts of passing
counterfeit currency. On appeal, Duncan argues that the govern-
ment breached the plea agreement by failing to recommend a two-
level reduction for an acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1(a).
We review de novo whether the government breached the
plea agreement. United States v. De La Garza,
516 F.3d 1266, 1269
(11th Cir. 2008). We have stated that a plea agreement “is, in es-
sence, a contract between the Government and a criminal defend-
ant.” United States v. Howle,
166 F.3d 1166, 1168 (11th Cir. 1999).
A plea agreement must be construed considering the fact that it
constitutes a waiver of substantial constitutional rights requiring
that the defendant be adequately warned of the consequences of
the plea. United States v. Jefferies,
908 F.2d 1520, 1523 (11th Cir.
1990). When a defendant enters into a plea agreement significantly
based on a promise or agreement from the government to a point
where that promise or agreement can be said to have induced the
defendant to plead guilty, the government must fulfill that prom-
ise. Santobello v. New York,
404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).
In determining whether the government has breached a plea
agreement, we must determine the scope of the government’s
USCA11 Case: 22-12415 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 05/25/2023 Page: 3 of 4
22-12415 Opinion of the Court 3
promises. United States v. Copeland,
381 F.3d 1101, 1105 (11th Cir.
2004). To determine the scope of the government’s promises, the
question is whether the government’s conduct was inconsistent
with the defendant’s reasonable understanding when she entered
her guilty plea. United States v. Sosa,
782 F.3d 630, 637 (11th Cir.
2015). We apply an objective standard to decide whether the gov-
ernment’s actions were inconsistent with the defendant’s under-
standing of the plea agreement, rather than reading the agreement
in a “hyper-technical or rigidly literal manner.” United States v.
Hunter,
835 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks
omitted).
In Hunter, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to all four
charges in exchange for the government’s recommendation at sen-
tencing for a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of respon-
sibility.
Id. at 1322-23. The government refused to make the rec-
ommendation and argued against the reduction at sentencing, ar-
guing on appeal that it was excused from making the recommen-
dation because the defendant had provided not credible testimony
before the negotiation of the plea agreement.
Id. at 1323-26. We
held that the government could not avoid the recommendation
based on facts of which it was aware prior to the plea agreement
because “[s]uch a practice would render the government’s promise
to recommend the reduction illusory.”
Id. at 1326. We explained
that, because the plea agreement constituted a contract between
the parties, if the government knew of facts that would allow it to
avoid making the recommendation at the time that it offered the
USCA11 Case: 22-12415 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 05/25/2023 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12415
plea agreement, the agreement “would fail from the outset due to
a lack of valid consideration.”
Id. We determined that this refusal
constituted a significant and deliberate breach of the plea agree-
ment and vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Id. at 1328,
1330.
Section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines states that, if
“the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility”
for the offense, the defendant’s offense level is decreased by two
levels. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) (2018). The commentary states that ap-
propriate considerations for determining whether a defendant
qualifies under § 3E1.1(a) include truthfully admitting the conduct
comprising the offenses of conviction and voluntarily terminating
or withdrawing from criminal conduct. Id. § 3E1.1, comment.
(n.1).
Here, the government did not breach the plea agreement by
not recommending that Duncan receive a two-level reduction un-
der U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) because, after executing the plea agree-
ment, it learned that Duncan had committed similar offenses while
on bond. The plea agreement expressly provided that the govern-
ment would only make such a recommendation if it did not learn
of adverse information suggesting that the recommendation was
not warranted, and when it learned of Duncan’s subsequent of-
fenses, the government was released from its obligation to make
the recommendation.
AFFIRMED.
