United States v. Woy

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 8, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11289
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRADLEY D. WOY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CR-270-2
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bradley Woy pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
one count of securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
§§ 77q(a), 77x. The plea agreement included a waiver of appeal,
except for claims that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum
or that Woy received ineffective assistance of counsel. The
district court sentenced Woy to 32 months of imprisonment and two
years of supervised release and ordered Woy to pay $789,000 in
restitution.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-11289
-2-
Woy appeals, arguing that the district court erred in
denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Woy’s motion
claimed that the government breached the plea agreement and that
his guilty plea was involuntary because the presentence report
(PSR) recommended two enhancements he had not anticipated, one
for his leadership role and one for his use of mass marketing
techniques.
The Government violates a plea agreement when its conduct is
inconsistent with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the
agreement, a question this court reviews de novo. United States
v. Munoz, 408 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 2005). To the extent that
the leadership enhancement contradicts language in the factual
resume, the Government fulfilled its obligation by opposing the
leadership enhancement. Although Woy asserts that the mass
marketing enhancement, which the Government did not oppose,
violated the parties’ understanding, nothing in the plea
agreement or the factual resume supports that contention. The
record reflects that Woy’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Woy’s
motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Carr,
740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984).
Woy also argues that the district court erred in admitting a
stipulation regarding statements made by his former attorney at
sentencing. The Government is correct that the appeal waiver in
No. 05-11289
-3-
the plea agreement bars the court from considering this issue.
See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the district court
are AFFIRMED.