United States v. Ernesto Cedillo

Case: 13-10933 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10933
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:12-cr-80179-KLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERNESTO CEDILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 5, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ernesto Cedillo appeals his sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment and 30
years’ supervised release, imposed after pleading guilty to failure to register under
Case: 13-10933 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 2 of 6
the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2250(a). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Cedillo’s sentence.
I.
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Cedillo agreed to plead guilty to
failure to register under SORNA. The plea agreement stated that “[Cedillo]
understands and acknowledges that the Court may impose a maximum penalty of
up to 10 years imprisonment. In addition to any term of imprisonment, the Court
may impose a term of supervised release of up to 3 years.” 1 The plea agreement
further provided that, “[s]ubject only to the express terms of any agreed-upon
sentencing recommendations contained in this agreement, [the government] further
reserves the right to make any recommendation as to the quality and quantity of
punishment.”
At Cedillo’s plea hearing, the district court reiterated the penalties set forth
in Cedillo’s plea agreement, explaining that, if it accepted Cedillo’s plea, it could
impose a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised
release. Cedillo confirmed that he understood the maximum penalties. Cedillo
pled guilty, and the court found that his plea was entered knowingly and
voluntarily. Thus, the court accepted his plea.
1
The plea agreement and the district court at the plea hearing misadvised Cedillo that
three years was the maximum term of supervised release that could be imposed for a violation of
§ 2250, which actually has a five-year mandatory minimum term of supervised release and a
maximum term of life. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k).
2
Case: 13-10933 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 3 of 6
At sentencing, the government requested that the court impose a sentence of
33 months’ imprisonment and 30 years’ supervised release. The government
asserted that the mandatory minimum term of supervised release was five years
and the maximum term was life. After considering the statements of all of the
parties, the presentence investigation report, and the statutory factors, the court
sentenced Cedillo to 33 months’ imprisonment and 30 years’ supervised release.
II.
On appeal, Cedillo argues that the government breached his plea agreement
when it requested that the district court impose a 30-year term of supervised
release after agreeing that the term of supervised release would be no more than 3
years. The government, by stating in the plea agreement that three years’
supervised release was the maximum term of supervised release that the district
court could impose, implicitly promised that the government would not seek a term
of supervised release greater than three years. Cedillo concedes that our review of
his argument is for plain error, and argues that he can satisfy all four requirements
necessary to warrant reversal under that standard. Cedillo further asserts that his
case should be remanded for resentencing and that he is entitled to specific
performance of his plea agreement. 2
2
Cedillo does not argue on appeal that the district court’s error rendered his plea
unknowing. Thus, we do not address this issue.
3
Case: 13-10933 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 4 of 6
We generally review de novo the question of whether the government
breached a plea agreement. United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 1104 (11th
Cir. 2004). However, where a defendant fails to object to an alleged breach before
the district court, as is the case here, we review only for plain error. United States
v. Romano, 314 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2002). Plain error exists where
(1) there is an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects the defendant’s substantial
rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
the judicial proceedings. Id.The first step in determining whether the government breached a plea
agreement is to “determine the scope of the government’s promises.” Copeland,
381 F.3d at 1105. In interpreting a plea agreement, a court should not engage in a
“hyper-technical reading of the written agreement” or “a rigidly literal approach in
the construction of the language.” Id. (quotations omitted). A plea agreement that
is ambiguous “must be read against the government.” Id. at 1105-06 (quotation
omitted). We apply an objective standard to determine “whether the government’s
actions [were] inconsistent with what the defendant reasonably understood” when
he pleaded guilty. Id. at 1105 (quotation omitted). The government breaches a
plea agreement where it promises to make a particular sentencing recommendation
and then advocates a position incompatible with the fulfillment of that promise.
United States v. Taylor, 77 F.3d 368, 370-71 (11th Cir. 1996).
4
Case: 13-10933 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 5 of 6
Here, it is undisputed that the plea agreement misstated the applicable
statutory maximum sentence of supervised release for Cedillo’s SORNA violation,
as the agreement provides that the district court “may impose a term of supervised
release of up to 3 years.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) (providing that a violation of
§ 2250 has a five-year mandatory minimum term of supervised release and a
maximum term of life). This paragraph of the plea agreement referencing a
statutory maximum sentence of three years’ supervised release was a mistake of
fact and not a promise by the government. Cedillo, moreover, concedes on appeal
that the government did not expressly agree to recommend a three-year term of
supervised release. Rather, his argument on appeal is that the government
implicitly agreed to make such a recommendation. However, Cedillo’s plea
agreement provided that, “[s]ubject only to the express terms of any agreed-upon
sentencing recommendations contained in this agreement, [the government] further
reserves the right to make any recommendation as to the quality and quantity of
punishment.” The only express recommendation that the government agreed to
make concerned a reduction in Cedillo’s offense level for his acceptance of
responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and (b), where certain
circumstances were satisfied. Because the plea agreement explicitly provided that
the government reserved the right to make any recommendation as to the term of
punishment that should be imposed, with the exception of the express
5
Case: 13-10933 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 6 of 6
acceptance-of-responsibility recommendation, Cedillo could not have reasonably
understood that the government agreed to recommend a three-year term of
supervised release. See Copeland, 381 F.3d at 1105. Thus, the government did not
implicitly promise to recommend a three-year term of supervised release.
Accordingly, Cedillo is unable to point to a promise that the government breached,
and he cannot show error, let alone plain error, with respect to his sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Cedillo’s sentence of 33 months’
imprisonment and 30 years’ supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
6