[DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 48 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :1 0- cr-0 00 58 -MTT-CHW-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us

MIC HAEL E DWARD TODD Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Aug us t 7 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-15482 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 1 of 10Mi ch ael EdwardTod d app eal s h is sen te nc e o f fo rty-si x m on th s

im pr is on m en t, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt i m po se d fo ll owi ng a gu il ty ple a. He 1 arg ue s t ha t t he sen te nc e sh ou ldbe setasi de be cau se (1) th e g ov ern m en t b reac he d th e p le a ag reem en t b y

see ki ng th e d en ia l o f a reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f
res po ns ib il it y

un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 ; (2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g h im th atreduc ti on ; an d (3 ) th e se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le
. I. Und er the pl ea ag reem en t i n t hi s ca se , th e g ov ern m en t ex pr es sl y “ ag ree[ d] to reco m m en d t ha t [To dd ] rece iv e a t hr ee l ev el reduc ti on in off en se lev el for
acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 .” Thi s o bl ig at io n was subjec t to on ly one ex cep ti on . Spe ci fic al ly, th e p art ie s ag reedth atth e g ov ern m en t co ul d
se ekth e d en ia l o f th e reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y sh ou ld th e de fen da nt se ek to wit hd raw th e gu il ty pl ea on ce it is en te red , o r s h ou ld it be de te rm in ed th at th e de fen da nt ha s ei th er (i) en ga ge d in co n d u c t , u n kn own to th e go ve rn m en t at th e ti m e of th e si gn in g of th is Ag r e em en t, th at co ns ti tu te s ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce or (ii ) en ga ge d in ad di ti on al cri m in al co nduc t af te r si gn in g t hi s Ag reem en t.

Todd pleade d guilty to one count of conspirac y to violate the Arms Ex port Control Act, 22 1 U.S.C. § 2778, and some of its acc ompanying regulations, 22 C.F.R. §§ 123.1 and 127.1, as well as the International Emerg ency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1705, and some of its implementing regulations, 31 C.F.R. §§ 560.203 and 560.204, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. 2 Case: 11-15482 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 2 of 10The parti es st ip ul at edth at , wit h t he reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y , th e

gu id el in e ran ge forTod d wo ul d b e fo rty-si x m on th s t o fi fty-sev en m on th s im pr is on m en t. The go ve rn m en t s ep arat el y ag reedto fil e a m ot io n fo r a d ep artur e
un de r U.S.S.G. § 5 K1.1 if, “ inth e g ov ern m en t’s s ol e o pi ni on , th e d efen da nt
ren de rs subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce.” The pa rti es si gn edth e ag reem en t o n M ay 9, 2 01 1. The pro ba ti on off

ic er p rep areda pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( PSR) , whi chreco m

m en de d t ha t To ddbe de ni eda reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f
res po ns ib il it y . The pro ba ti on off ic er b as edth is reco m

m en da ti on on Tod d’s d ru g
us e an d h is fai lu re t o a tt en d adru g t reat m en t p ro gr am . Tod d fi le d a n o bjec ti on to th e PSR
. He as se rte d t ha t h is pro bl em s wi th dru gs was alo ng st an di ng on e, th athe ha d a ccep te d re sp on si bi li ty for t he dru g u se , andth athi s g ui de li ne ran ge sh ou ldbe th e o ne co nt em

pl at edby the pl ea ag reem en t. The go ve rn m en t fi le d ares po ns e to Tod d’s o bjec ti on , ass ert in g t ha t t he de ni al of t he reduc ti on wou ldbe ap pr op ria te . The go ve rn m en t em ph as iz edth at Tod d’s b eh av io r “ ov er t he fou r m on th pe rio d fr om when he was fi rs t arrai gn ed de m on st rat es hi s d en ia l o f acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y .” The las t ev en ts th atth e go ve rn m en t ci te d wer e a p os it iv e dru g t es t i n Ap ril 20 11 , as wel l as Tod d’s fa il ur e to att en d asubs ta nc e ab us e p ro gr am th atm on th
. The go ve rn m en t al so fil eda U.S.S.G. § 5 K1.1 m ot io n, b ut , in a se pa rat e se nt en ci ng m em or an du m , itag ai n 3 Case: 11-15482 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 3 of 10st at edth atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d d en y a reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f
res po ns ib il it y . At s en te nc in g, t he pa rti es ad dr es se d t hi s s pe ci fic is su e. Tod d t ol d t he di st ric t co urt: Wha t I th in k is im

po rta nt to no te he re i n t hi s pa rti cu la r cas e is th at th e go ve rn m en t, aft er th es e [dru g] is su es cam e up , . . . th e go ve rn m en t th en pr of fere d to hi m a pl ea ag reem en t. Tha t pl ea ag reem en t ba si c al ly pr om is ed hi m acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , th at th ey wou ld reco m m en d no t on ly th e two le ve ls , bu t th e th ird le ve l
. . . . So th e go ve rn m en t was w e l l a ware th at th es e is su es ha d co m e up an d in th ei r pl ea ag reeme n t st il l m ainta ine d an d se t fo rth a gu id el in e ran ge whi ch es se nt ia ll y res ul te d in a se nt en ce atth atti m e o f 46 to 57 m on th s. Tod d the n wen t o n t o a rg ue th athe sh ou ldbe gra nt eda reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f
res po ns ib il it y . Inres po ns e, th e g ov ern m en t s ai d: “ W e certa in ly stan d b y ou r pl ea ag reem en t an d we c ert ai nl y co nt em pl at edth e th ree p oi nt s o f acc ep ta nc e b as edon th e m eri ts of t he cas e an d h is co m in g fo rward .” Bu t i t wen t o n t o a rg ue th at“ th e si tu at io n o f ho w [Tod d] co nduc ts hi m se lf wh il e h e is pe rm it te d t o b e o utonbo nd ”
was a di ffer en t i ss ue , anditwarran te d t he de ni al of a ccep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . The di stric t co urt d en ie d To dd ’s ob jecti on an d fo un d t ha t h is gu id el in e
ran ge was s ix ty-th ree m on th s t o s ev en ty-eig htm on th s i m pr is on m en t. Bec au se of a st atut ory m ax im um , ho wev er, t ha t ra ng e b ecame a gu id el in e se nt en ce o f si xt y

4 Case: 11-15482 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 4 of 10m on th s. The co urt t he n g ran te d the U.S.S.G. § 5 K1.1 m ot io n a ndsen te nc edTod d

to for ty-si x m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. II. As a t hr es ho ldm at te r, Tod d a ckno wled ge s t ha t h is pl ea ag reem en t co nt ai ns
an ap pe al waiv er, b uthe arg ue s t ha t t he waiv er i s n oten fo rceabl e b ecau se th e di st ric t co urt d idno t ex pl ai n tha t p ro vi si on to hi m at t he ch an ge -o f-p le a h eari ng , in vi ol at io n o f Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 1 1( b) (1 )(N). W e n eedno t
co ns id er t hi s i ss ue be cau se th e g ov ern m en t h as no t fi le d am ot io n t o d is m is s t hi s ap pe al or o th erwi se in vo ke d t he waiv er. In st ead , th e g ov ern m en t h as ask edus to
co ns id er t hi s ap pe al on it s m eri ts . W e th eref or e le av e as id e th e que st io n o f whe th er t he ap pe al waiv er i s en fo rceabl e an d turn t o t he m eri ts of To dd ’s app eal
. See Un it edSta te s v . Valn or , 45 1 F .3d74 4, 7 45 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). III. Tod d a rg ue s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t b y see ki ng th e d en ia l o f a reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1
. He as se rts th atth is cla im sh ou ldbe rev ie wedde no vo be cau se he bro ug htitto th e at te nt io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt. Tod d s ta te s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t b reac he d the

“pl ai nl y st at edlan gu ag e” i n t he pl ea ag reem en t, an d a s a r em edy , he s eek s t he

5 Case: 11-15482 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 5 of 10sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce o f th e o bl ig at io n a nda re-s en te nc in g b efo re a d iff eren t di st ric t ju dg e. Inres po ns e, th e g ov ern m en t co nc ed es th atitbre ach edth e p le a ag reem en t. The go ve rn m en t ac kn owl ed ge s t ha t i ts res po ns e to Tod d’s o bjec ti on to th e PSR

“ was di rect ly con tra ry

to [it s] pro m is e.” The go ve rn m en t al so reco gn iz es th atit s
se nt en ci ng m em or an du m “ as se rte d apo si ti on co nt rary to i ts ag reem en t” with Tod d. The go ve rn m en t n ot es th at“ no whe re d oe s t he reco rdsh ow tha t [i t] affi rm at iv el y

reco m m en de d ath ree- le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f
res po ns ib il it y .” The go ve rn m en t, h owe ve r, res is ts Tod d’s re qu es t fo r a re- se nt en ci ng on th e gr ou ndth athe di d n otpre se ntth is is su e to th e d is tri ctco urt. The go ve rn m en t arg ue s t ha t To dd ’s cla im

is th eref or e su bjec t t o p la in erro r rev ie w, andth atun de r th atst an da rd , th ere i s n o re ve rs ib le erro r. The go ve rn m en t co nc ed es th atth e br each of t he pl ea ag reem en t was erro r an d t ha t t hi s was pl ai n, b utitsu gg es ts th at th e err ordi d n otaffe ctTod d’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. The go ve rn m en t al so m ai nt ai ns th atit s d eci si on to bre ach th e p le a ag reem en t d idno t s eri ou sl y affe ctth e fai rn es s, th e in te gr it y , or the publ ic rep ut at io n o f th e p ro ceed in gs . The go ve rn m en t i s co rrec t t o p oi ntou t t ha t, i f a d efen da ntfai ls to ob ject t o th e g ov ern m en t’s b reac h o f a p le a ag reem en t, t he n p la inerro r rev ie w app li es . W e 6 Case: 11-15482 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 6 of 10ha ve lo ng reco gn iz edth is pri nc ip le , see , e.g., Un it edSta te s v . Thayer, 20 4 F .3d

13 52 , 13 56 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ), an d t he Supr em e Co urt co nf irmed th is rul e in Pu ck et t v. Un it edSta te s, 5 56 U.S. 12 9, 1 33 –3 4, 1 29 S. Ct. 1 42 3, 1 42 8 (2 00 9) . Howev er, we are p ers ua de d t ha t To ddsu ffi ci en tl y rai se d t hi s i ss ue in th e d is tri ctco urt s uc h th atde no vo rev ie w app li es to hi s cl ai m . See Un it edSta te s v . Cop el an d, 3 81 F.3d 11 01 , 11 04 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (h ol di ng th ata pr es erv edcla im reg ard in g the bre ach of a pl ea ag reem en t i s re vi ewedde no vo ). Acco rd in g t o t he go ve rn m en t, “ th e rec or d fa il s t o re ve al an y effo rt b y Tod d . . . to ra is e wit h t he di st ric t co urt t he po ss ib il it y th atth e Gov ern m en t m ig htbe br each in g t he term s o f th e p le a ag reem en t.” We can no t ag ree. As setou t ab ov e, th e rec or d c le arl y

de m on st rat es th atat s en te nc in g, To ddto ldth e co urt t ha t t he go ve rn m en t h adpro m is edin th e p le a ag reem en t t o re co m m en d ath ree- le ve l reduc ti on , whi ch wou ldco rres po ndto a gu id el in e ran ge of f orty-si x m on th s t o fif ty-sev en m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Tod d a ls o t ol d t he di st ric t co urt t ha t the go ve rn m en t h adpro m is edto do so aft er t he in ci de nt s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t i ns is te d
warra nt edth e d en ia l o f a reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y . The go ve rn m en t at te m

pt s t o d own pl ay

Tod d’s co m

m en ts by sug ge st in g t ha t he “ rai se d t he pl ea ag reem en t wi th th e co urt, b utno t t o arg ue th atth e Gov ern m en t ha d fa il edto co m

pl y wit h i t.” Thi s ar gu m en t s tra in s cr edul it y . Ind eed , in res po ns e

7 Case: 11-15482 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 7 of 10to Tod d’s ar gu m en t, t he go ve rn m en t fe ltco m pe ll edto ass ertto th e d is tri ctco urt:

“ W e certa in ly stan d b y

ou r pl ea ag reem en t.” Itis ob vi ou s t ha t atth atjun ctur e, th e go ve rn m en t u nd ers to odth atTod d h adarg ue d t o t he di st ric t co urt t ha t i t h ad br each edth e p le a ag reem en t. The re was no ot he r rea so n fo r th e g ov ern m en t t o t ry to reas su re t he di st ric t co urt t ha t i t was “ st an d[ in g] by” its pro m is e. 2 W e al so ob se rv e th at , aft er i ns is ti ng th atitwas a dh eri ng to th e p le a ag reem en t, t he go ve rn m en t wen t o n t o ju st ify to t he di st ric t co urt i ts de ci si on no t to reco m m en d ath ree- le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il ity . The go ve rn m en t cl ai m edth atit s p ro m is e to m ak e th e rec omm en da ti on was “ ba se d o n th e m eri ts of t he cas e,” b utth at“ th e si tu at io n o f ho w [Tod d] co nduc ts hi m se lf whi le he is pe rm it te d t o b e o utonbo nd ” was a di ffer en t i ss ue . The go ve rn m en t th us att em

pt edto arg ue th atitwas n otbre ach in g i ts pro m is e b y see ki ng th e d en ia l of a reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y . The go ve rn m en t n ow
co nc ed es —b el at ed ly—th atth is was e rro r. The go ve rn m en t re li es on Pu ck et t t o s ug ge stth atTod d d idno t ra is e th e is su e o f th e b reac h, b utin li gh t o f th e rec or d h ere, Pu ck et t i s cl earl y
The g over nment char acte rizes Todd’s comment as one aimed at showing that “eve n the 2 Gov ernme nt agree d that a lower sentenc e was appropr iate.” This is not persua sive. The rec ord clea rly demonstrates that all of these rema rks wer e made in response to the district court’s specific question about the issue of acc eptanc e of responsibility
. The exchang e betwee n Todd and t h e g overnmen t did not take place in the portion of the sentenc ing hearing during which the parties addre ssed what the se ntence ultimately should be. 8 Case: 11-15482 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 8 of 10di st in gu is habl e. Inth atcas e, th e Supr em e Co urt n ot edth at“ atno ti m e dur in g

[s en te nc in g] di d P uc ke tt ’s cou ns el ob ject t ha t the Gov ern m en t was vi ol at in g i ts ob li ga ti on s u nd er t he pl ea ag reem en t b y ba ck in g a way

fro m it s re qu es t fo r th e reduc ti on .” Pu ck et t, 5 56 U.S. at 1 33 , 12 9 S . Ct. at14 27 . Here, by con tra st , Tod d to ldth e d is tri ctco urt tha t t he go ve rn m en t h adpro m is edto reco m m en d ath reele ve l re du ct io n. Andin res po ns e, th e g ov ern m en t fe ltco m pe ll edto ass ertth atit
was “ st an d[ in g] by” its pro m is e. The factua l s cen ari o i n P uc ke ttis en ti rel y di ffer en t tha n the on e h ere. Insu m , th e g ov ern m en t’s s ug ge st io n t ha t To dddi d n otarg ue to th e d is tri ct
co urt t ha t i t h adbre ach edth e p le a ag reem en t ri ng s h ol lo w. The re co rdsh ows th at 3 Tod d m ad e th atarg um en t an d tha t i t was su ffi ci en tl y cle ar an d c om

pe ll in g t ha t t he go ve rn m en t fe ltth e n eedto co un te r it . In l ig htof a ll of t hi s, we co nc lu de th at Tod d p res erv edth e is su e an d t ha t d e n ov o re vi ew ap pl ie s. See Co pe la nd , 38 1 F.3 d a t 1 10 4. As s etou t ab ov e, th e g ov ern m en t co nc ed es th atitbre ach edth e p le a ag reem en t, an d t hu s, t he on ly que st io n t ha t re m ai ns is on e o f rem edy . See Un it ed

The g overnme nt’s separ ate sug g estion that Todd did not even prese rve an objection to the 3 sentenc e imposed is also unpersua sive. After imposing the sentenc e, the court asked the parties: “ar e there any objections to the sentenc e . . . other than those that we’ ve alre ady covered? ” (Emphasis added.) Todd’s response that he did not have any does not indicate t hat he did not object to the sentenc e imposed. 9

Case: 11-15482 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 9 of 10St at es v. J oh ns on , 13 2 F .3d62 8, 6 31 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Our p rece de ntreco gn iz es

two types of r em edy : 1 ) sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce o f th e p le a ag reem en t; an d 2 ) wit hd rawal of t he gu il ty ple a. Id . Whe re s pe ci fic pe rfo rm an ce i s due , ou r pr act ic e ha s b eento rem an d t he cas e fo r re-s en te nc in g b efo re a d iff eren t d is tri ctjud ge . See id . Here, “ [s ]inc e [To dd ] do es no t d es ire to wit hd raw h is gu il ty ple a, an d s in ce h is reque stforsp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce i s ju st ifi edby his adhe ren ce t o h is si de of t he ba rg ai n, we wi ll ho no r hi s re qu es t.” Un it edSta te s v . Rewis , 96 9 F .2d98 5, 9 89 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) . W e th eref or e v acat e h is sen te nc e an d re m an d fo r re-s en te nc in g be fo re a d iff

eren t d is tri ctjud ge . 4 VACATED AND REMANDED.

In light of this, we e x press no view s on the other issues that Todd ha s raised on a ppeal. 4 10 Case: 11-15482 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 10 of 10