N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R OB ER T DEWAYNE LAC EY,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-30044

D.C . No. 6:16-c r-00096-M C -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l J. M c Shane , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2020 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : B YB EE a

n d VANDYKE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C HHAB RIA, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JUN 10 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Vinc e C hha

bria , Unite d State s Distric t Judgefor the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.In 2015, Appe lla nt R o be rt La c e y

ple a de d guilty

to one c ount of posse ssion of m e tha m p he tam ine with intent to distribute
. Unde r his ple a a g re e m e nt, the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt a gre e d to re c om m e nd a se nte nc e at the low e n d of the a pplic a ble Guide line s range , La c e y a gre e d to a lso ple a d guilty to one outsta

nding c ha rge in C a l ifornia

sta te c ourt, a nd the Fre sno C ounty

Distric t Attorne y ’ s Offic e a gre e d to dismiss othe r state c ha rge s. Afte r se nte n c ing La c e y to forty -nine
m onths’ im

prisonm e nt, thedistric t c ourt “ re c om m e nd[e d] tha

t [he ] pa rtic ipate in” the B ure a u of Prison’ s R e s ide ntia l Drug a nd Alc ohol Progra

m (RDAP). While inc a rc e rate d, La c e y att e m

pte d to a pply for RDAP, but hewa s ine ligiblebe c a use his sta t e c rim i na l c ha

rge s ha d not y e t be e n re s olve d. B y the tim e the y we re , La c e y m isse d the de a dline to a

p ply for and pa

rtic ipate in R

D AP. In 2018, La c e y

m ove d to re duc e his se nte nc e , a rguing tha

t the gove rnm e nt ha d bre a c he d the ple a

a gre e m e nt. The distric t c ourt de nie d the m otion. La c e y m ove d for re c onside ration, whic h the distric t c ourt a l so de n ie d. The distric t c ourt orde re d tha

t a notic e of a

ppe a l be file d on La c e y ’ s be ha lf, a nd this a ppe a l followe d. W e c onstrue La c e y ’ s m otion to re duc e his se nte nc e a s a m otion under 28 U.S.C . § 2255. Thus, the distric t c ourt ha d jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255(a). W e a lso c onstrue the distric t c ourt’ s orde r that a notic e of a

p pe a l be file d on La c e y ’ s be h a lf a s gra

nting La c e y

a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility
. Ac c ordingly , we 2have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253(a). W e hav e be e n inc onsiste nt in the

sta nda rd of re vie w tha

t a pplie s to a

c la im tha t the gove rnm e nt ha s bre a c he d a ple a a gre e m e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Alv are

z , 835 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th C ir. 2016) (a pply ing de novo re vie w ); Unite d State s v . Sale mo , 81 F.3d 1453, 1460 (9th C ir. 1996) (a pply ing c le arly

e rrone ous re vie w). B ut we ne e d not re solve this inc o nsiste nc y

be c a use the outc om e is the sa

m e unde r e ithe r sta

nda rd of re vie w. W e a ffirm
. To de te rm ine whe the r a

ple a a gre e m e nt ha s be e n bre a c he d, we “ look to wha t the d e fe nda

nt re a sona

bly unde rstood when he e nte re d his guilty ple a .” Unite d State s v . Quan , 789 F.2d 711, 713 (9th C ir. 1986). Dispute s re lating to the te rm s of the a gre e m e nt a

re re s olve d “by

obje c tive sta

nda rds.” Id. ; s e ealso, e .g. , U nite d State s v . Dela Fue n te , 8 F.3d 1333, 1337 (9th C ir. 1993) (“ Ple a a g re e m e nts a

re c ontra c tua l in na

ture and a re m e a sure d by

c ontra c t la

w sta nda rds.” ). The gove rnm e nt will only

be “ he ld to thelite ra l te rm s of the a gre e m e nt.” Unite d State s v . C lark , 781 F.2d 730, 731 (9th C ir. 1986) (interna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). The re wa s no bre a c h

of the ple a

a gre e m e nt. The ple a

a g re e m e nt wa s c ontinge nt on theFre sno C ounty Distric t Attorne y ’ s Offic e dism issing se ve ra l sta te c ha rge s a fte r La c e y

ple a de d guilty

to one of the m , but the re wa s no re quire m e nt that the dism issa l be a c c o m

plishe d within a

pa rtic ula r tim e fram e . Nor doe s the 3ple a

a gre e m e nt re quire that La c e y be a fforde d the opportunity to a pply for RDAP. And the distric t c ourt’ s re c o m m e ndation a

t se nte n c ing tha

t La c e y pa rtic ipate in RDAP wa s just tha

t— a re c om m e ndation. Thedistric t c ourt’ s sta te m e nt did not am e nd the ple a

a gre e m e nt or othe rwise obliga t e the Fre sno C ounty

Distric t Attorne y ’ s Offic e to quic kly re solve the sta

t e c ha rge s. B e c a

use La c e y ’ s sta

t e c ha rge s we re e ve ntua lly

dism isse d, the gove rnm e nt c om plie d with the“ lite ra l te rm s of the a gre e m e nt.” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). Although wha t oc c urre d is unfortuna

te , the opportunity

to suc c e ssfully

a pply for RDAP sim

ply wa s not promise d . In the a bse nc e of a

bre a c h of the ple a

a gre e m e nt, La c e y ’ s re que s t for a

se nte nc e re duc tion wa s prope rly de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

4