United States v. Fordham , 286 F. App'x 6 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4829
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AMANDA FORDHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:05-cr-01077-HFF)
Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: August 4, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Snow Kendrick, JOSHUA SNOW KENDRICK, P.C., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States
Attorney, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Amanda Fordham pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).
Fordham was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. Finding no
error, we affirm.
On appeal, Fordham contends the Government breached the
terms of the plea agreement by failing to recommend a downward
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. “[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). “It is well-established that the
interpretation of plea agreements is rooted in contract law, and
that ‘each party should receive the benefit of its bargain.’”
United States v. Peglera, 33 F.3d 412, 413 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting
United States v. Ringling, 988 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1993)). “A
central tenet of contract law is that no party is obligated to
provide more than is specified in the agreement itself.” Id.Accordingly, “the government’s duty in carrying out its obligations
under a plea agreement is no greater than that of ‘fidelity to the
agreement.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Fentress, 792 F.2d 461,
464 (4th Cir. 1986)).
- 2 -
Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, a two-level
downward adjustment under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 3E1.1(a) (2006) would be applied if the district court, in its
discretion, determined that Fordham had accepted responsibility.
If the court so determined, the Government agreed to move for an
additional one-level decrease under § 3E1.1(b). Because Fordham
absconded for more than a year and continued to engage in criminal
conduct, the court concluded that a two-level downward adjustment
under § 3E1.1(a) was not warranted. Consequently, the Government
was not obligated to move for an additional one-level decrease
under § 3E1.1(b). While Fordham alternatively asserts that the
Government breached the plea agreement by arguing against
application of the initial two-level downward adjustment, the
Government was not obligated to remain silent as the plea agreement
explicitly provided that the Government
retain[ed] the right to inform the Court of any relevant
facts, to address the Court with respect to the nature of
the offense, to respond to questions raised by the Court,
to correct any inaccuracies or inadequacies in the
presentence report, [and] to respond to any statements
made to the Court by or on behalf of the
Defendant . . . .
Since Fordham assented to these terms, both in writing and during
the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude she cannot establish
that the Government breached the plea agreement.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -