Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-16-12151/USCOURTS-ca11-16-12151-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Santeramo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-12151

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cr-60184-WJZ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

PATRICK SANTERAMO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 28, 2017)

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 16-12151 Date Filed: 02/28/2017 Page: 1 of 6
2

Patrick Santeramo appeals his 18-month sentence, imposed after he pled 

guilty to mail fraud. Santeramo asserts that the government breached his plea 

agreement by failing to affirmatively and timely recommend that his federal 

sentence should run concurrently with his related state sentence. After careful 

review, we affirm.

I.

After a federal grand jury indicted Santeramo on two counts of mail fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, he agreed to plead guilty to one of those counts 

pursuant to a plea agreement. In exchange for Santeramo’s guilty plea, the 

government agreed to dismiss the second mail fraud count and, as relevant here, to 

make jointly with defense counsel a number of recommendations to the district 

court related to sentencing. These joint recommendations included that 

Santeramo’s federal sentence run concurrently with a 60-month state sentence 

based on the same fraudulent course of conduct and a recommendation by the 

government that Santeramo should receive a sentence at the bottom of his advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines range (18 to 24 months’ imprisonment). The plea 

agreement also contained a disclaimer “that any recommendation that the 

government makes to the Court as to sentencing, whether pursuant to this 

agreement or otherwise, is not binding on the Court and the Court may disregard 

USCA11 Case: 16-12151 Date Filed: 02/28/2017 Page: 2 of 6
3

the recommendation in its entirety.” Plea Agreement, Doc. 24 at 5.1 The 

agreement also stated that Santeramo understood that he was not permitted to 

withdraw his plea based on the district court’s decision to reject a sentencing 

recommendation made by either or both parties.

The district court held a change-of-plea hearing at which Santeramo 

confirmed that he understood the details of the plea agreement. Also at the 

hearing, the government asked that the district court “let his sentence, whatever 

sentence this Court imposes, start at the same time [as Santeramo’s state sentence] 

and be served in state [prison].” Change-of-plea Hearing Transcript, Doc. 29 at 

22-23. The district court accepted Santeramo’s plea.

At the sentencing hearing, Santeramo requested that the district court impose 

a sentence at the low end of his advisory guidelines range to run concurrently with 

his state sentence. The government restated its recommendation that Santeramo 

receive an 18-month sentence, the bottom of his guidelines range. The district 

court imposed an 18-month sentence to run consecutively to Santeramo’s state 

sentence. Santeramo thereafter objected to the sentences running consecutively, 

and the government represented to the court that, pursuant to the plea agreement, it 

agreed that Santeramo should serve his federal sentence concurrently with his state 

sentence. The district court responded that it had “always consider[ed] that to be 

 1 “Doc.” refers to the numbered entry on the district court’s docket in this case.

USCA11 Case: 16-12151 Date Filed: 02/28/2017 Page: 3 of 6
4

the government’s position,” but emphasized that the government’s position was not 

binding on the court. Sentencing Transcript, Doc. 45 at 17. The district court 

declined to revisit the sentence it had announced.

This is Santeramo’s appeal.

II.

We generally review de novo whether the government has breached a plea 

agreement. United States v. De La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008). 

If, however, the defendant failed to object to the alleged breach below, then our 

review is limited to plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 136–43 

(2009). Under plain error review, the defendant must show (1) an error, (2) that is 

plain, (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Id. at 135. If those three 

prongs are met, we may exercise our discretion to correct the error if it seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. 

The parties dispute whether Santeramo raised a proper objection in the 

district court. Although he objected to his sentences running consecutively, he did 

not assert that the government had breached the plea agreement. We need not 

resolve the parties’ dispute because, as we discuss below, Santeramo’s argument 

fails even under a de novo standard of review.

USCA11 Case: 16-12151 Date Filed: 02/28/2017 Page: 4 of 6
5

III.

A material promise by the government, which induces the defendant to plead 

guilty, binds the government to that promise. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 

257, 262 (1971). In determining whether the government breached the plea 

agreement, we must “determine the scope of the government’s promises.” United 

States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 1105 (11th Cir. 2004). We analyze the plea 

agreement according to the defendant’s reasonable understanding upon entering 

the plea. United States v. Rewis, 969 F.2d 985, 988 (11th Cir. 1992). Whether the 

district court considered or was influenced by the government’s breach is 

irrelevant. United States v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 628, 630 (11th Cir. 1998). If the 

government breaches a plea agreement, we may either require specific 

performance of the plea agreement or permit the defendant to withdraw his plea. 

Id. at 631.

Santeramo’s assertion that the government breached the plea agreement is 

belied by the record. By agreeing with defense counsel during the sentencing 

hearing that Santeramo’s federal sentence should run concurrently with his state 

sentence, the government fulfilled its obligation. See Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262; 

Copeland, 381 F.3d at 1105. Even though the government failed to recommend a 

concurrent sentence before the district court pronounced the sentence, it previously 

had made the recommendation at the change-of-plea hearing. And the district 

USCA11 Case: 16-12151 Date Filed: 02/28/2017 Page: 5 of 6
6

court confirmed at sentencing that it had “always consider[ed]” the government’s 

recommendation to be that Santeramo’s federal and state sentences run 

concurrently but that the court was not bound by the recommendation. Moreover, 

when the government recommended a concurrent sentence after defense counsel’s 

objection at the sentencing hearing, the district court could still entertain the 

recommendation and revisit the sentence it had announced. See Puckett, 556 U.S. 

at 140. The court simply chose not to. Thus, no breach occurred.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s imposition of Santeramo’s 18 

month federal sentence to run consecutively with his state sentence.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 16-12151 Date Filed: 02/28/2017 Page: 6 of 6