[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-14427

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER BUONOCORE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00402-TPB-JSS-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-14427 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 21-14427

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Buonocore, a counseled federal prisoner, appeals his 180-month total sentence. He moves to summarily reverse the district court and to stay the briefing schedule. He asserts

he is entitled to relief because the Government did not recommend 

a total sentence within the guidelines range, as agreed to in the

written plea agreement. The Government acknowledges it 

breached the plea agreement, agrees with Buonocore that the case 

should be remanded, and recommends that we remand to the district court to a different judge for resentencing. 

I. BACKGROUND 

In 2020, Buonocore pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea 

agreement to six counts of cyberstalking, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261(b), 

2261A(2)(B). In relevant part, the written plea agreement provided 

that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), 

the Government “will recommend to the Court that the defendant

be sentenced within the defendant’s applicable guidelines range as 

determined by the Court pursuant to the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines, as adjusted by any departure the United States has 

agreed to recommend in this plea agreement.” The district court 

ultimately accepted Buonocore’s plea and found him guilty.

Buonocore’s presentencing investigation report calculated 

his original guidelines imprisonment range to be 108 to 135 

USCA11 Case: 21-14427 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 2 of 6
21-14427 Opinion of the Court 3

months’ imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court found his 

guidelines range was only 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment. The 

Government asked the court to vary upward and sentence him 

within his original guidelines range of 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment. The Government later verified that it was asking for a 

135-month total sentence.

The district court, however, varied upward beyond the total 

term sought by the Government, and sentenced Buonocore to a 

total of 180 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. At no point in the proceedings did either the Government or Buonocore mention that the plea agreement required 

the Government to recommend a total sentence within the guidelines range as calculated by the district court.

Prior to briefing in this appeal, Buonocore filed the present 

motion for summary reversal, arguing he had entered into a valid 

plea agreement that the Government did not follow when it recommended he be sentenced outside the announced guidelines

range of 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment.

II. DISCUSSION 

“[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). “A material 

promise by the government, which induces a defendant to plead 

guilty, binds the government to that promise,” meaning “the 

USCA11 Case: 21-14427 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 21-14427

government breaches a plea agreement when it fails to perform the 

promises on which the plea was based.” United States v. Hunter, 

835 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted). A 

defendant can bargain not just for the dismissal of charges, but also 

for a particular sentencing recommendation by the prosecution. 

See Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262. After the government concedes 

that such a promise was made, it is unlikely it could argue that its 

inadvertent breach was immaterial. See id. 

We grant Buonocore’s motion, vacate his total sentence,

and remand the case back to the district court for resentencing before a different judge.1 Buonocore has shown plain error. See 

United States v. Hedges, 175 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 1999) (reviewing an issue not preserved in a criminal case for plain error).

The Government agreed to recommend a total sentence within the 

sentencing guidelines range in the plea agreement. The district 

court announced a guidelines imprisonment range of 51 to 63 

months. The Government then recommended a 135-month total 

sentence, which was outside the announced guidelines range. 

Thus, there was an error that is plain. See United States v. De La 

1 “[T]here are two remedies available when a plea agreement is breached.” 

Hunter, 835 F.3d at 1329 (quotation marks omitted). The first is to “remand 

the case for resentencing according to the terms of the agreement before a 

different judge.” Id. The second is to “permit the withdrawal of the guilty 

plea.” Id. We have the discretion to choose between these two remedies, but 

withdrawal of the plea is the less favored option. Id. 

USCA11 Case: 21-14427 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 4 of 6
21-14427 Opinion of the Court 5

Garza, 516 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating, “[u]nder plain 

error review, there must be (1) 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 judicial proceedings”). 

As for substantial rights, part of the plea agreement included 

recommending a total sentence within the guidelines and the Government was bound by that promise. By recommending a sentence over the guidelines range, the Government materially 

breached a promise that must be fulfilled, impacting Buonocore’s

rights. See Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262. As the Government

breached the agreement, the interests of justice and recognition of 

the duties of the prosecution in relation to promises made during 

the plea negotiation also justify remanding the case back to the district court, in front of a different judge, for resentencing. Id. at 262–

63 (concluding the interests of justice and the recognition of the 

duties of the prosecution in relation to promises made in the negotiation of guilty pleas can serve as grounds to remand cases in the 

case of a government breach of an agreement); see also Hunter, 

835 F.3d at 1329. 

Therefore, because Buonocore’s position is clearly correct 

as a matter of law, we GRANT his motion for summary reversal 

and DENY as moot his motion to stay the briefing schedule. See 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 

USCA11 Case: 21-14427 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 21-14427

1969)2 (explaining summary disposition is appropriate, in part, 

where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter 

of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case”). 

2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), 

this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.

USCA11 Case: 21-14427 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 6 of 6