FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 09 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cr-0 00 05 -RS- LB-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us KARRIECE QUONTREL DAVIS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Karri ece Da vi s, p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l of hi s p os tju dg m en t M ot io n t o En fo rce S pe ci fic Perfo rm an ce o f th e Pl eaAgr eem en t. In h is ap pe al , Davi s cl ai m s tha t the Gov ern m en t v io la te d s ev eral 1 pr ov is io ns of t he pl ea ag reem en t. 2 I Dav is fir starg ue s tha t the Gov ern m en t b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t b y fai li ng to fil e a s ub st an ti al -as si st an ce m ot io n. We revi ew th e Gov ern m en t’s al le ge d b reac h o f a p le a ag reem en t de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. C op elan d , 38 1 F .3d 11 01 , 11 04 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).

“ Due pro ces s re qu ire s the go ve rn m en t t o a dh ere t o t he term s o f an y pl ea ba rg ai n o r imm

un it y ag reem en t i t m ak es .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha rv ey , 86 9 F .2d 14 39 , 14 43 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (en ba nc ). The fe de ral co urts , th ou gh , hav e au th or it y to rev ie w th e g ov ern m en t’s re fu sa l t o fi le a subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n o nl y if th e ref us al is ba se d o n a n unc on st itut io na l m ot iv e. W ade v. Uni te d Sta tes , 50 4 U.S. 18 1, 1 85 –8 6, 1 12 S. Ct. 1 84 0, 1 84 3– 44 (19 92 ). A defe nd an t’s cl ai m th athe

“ m erel y pro vi de d s ub st an ti al ass is tanc e” o r ge ne ral iz edall eg at io n o f im pr op er
The Gove rnment conte nds that we do not have jurisdiction over this appea l beca use 1 Davis did not obtain a ce rtificate of appe alability (COA). H oweve r, a COA is not nec essar y beca use Da vis is not challeng ing the constitutionality of his sentenc e and inc arc eration through a habea s motion, butis simpl y seekingto enforc e the ter ms of his plea agree ment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1). Davis conte nds that he is entitled to relief unde r F eder al Rule of Criminal Procedur e 2 35(b). Although we liber ally construe pro sepleading s, we c annot per mit a party

to bringa cla im which they

are prohibited from bring ing unde r the Rules. SeeFe d. R. Crim. P . 35(b) ( allowinga reduc tion in sentence f

or substantial assistance only upon the g overnme nt’s motion). 2m ot iv e d oe s n oten ti tl e h im to a rem edy . Id
. at 1 86 , 11 2 S . Ct. at18 44 . Here, Dav is do es no t al le ge th atth e Gov ern m en t h adanun co ns ti tu ti on al m ot iv e in de ci di ng no t t o fi le a subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n. Fu rth erm or e, th e pl ea ag reem en t g av e th e g ov ern m en t s ol e d is cret io n t o d et erm in e whe th er Dav is pr ov id edsubs ta nt ia l as si st an ce. The reco rdrefl ect s tha t the Gov ern m en t re fu se d to fil e th e m ot io n due to Davi s’s u nt ru th fu ln es s an d i nc on si st en t co op erat io n, whi chis no t an un co ns ti tu ti on al m ot iv e. Ther efo re, rel ie f is no t p ro pe r. II Dav is als o arg ue s tha t the Gov ern m en t b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t b y us in g p ro te ct edst at em en ts he ut te reddu rin g h is de br ie fin g s es si on s atsen te nc in g. Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 1 1 p ro vi de s tha t the admis si bi li ty of pl ea di sc us si on s an d re la te d s ta te m en ts is go ve rn edby Feder al Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 10 . Fed . R. Cri m . P. 11 (f). Ru le 41 0 s ta te s tha t an y st at em en t m ad e dur in g t he co ur se of gu il ty ple a p ro ceed in gs or p le a d is cu ss io ns with t he pro se cu ti on th atdo no t res ul t i n a n u lt im at e p le a are in adm is si bl e ag ai ns t the de fen da ntincri m in al pr oc eed in gs . In ad di ti on , th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es pro vi de th atwhen th e Gov ern m en t ag rees th atsel f-i nc riminat in g i nf orm at io n p ro vi de d p ur su an t t o t he co op erat io n a gr eem en t wi ll no t b e u se d a ga in stth e d efen da nt , su chin fo rm at io n

“ sh al l n otbe us edinde te rm in in g t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , exc ep t t o t he 3ex te ntpro vi de d i n t he ag reem en t.” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.8 (a).

Here, the Gov ern m en t ag reedno t t o u se th e st at em en ts Davi s m ad e p ur su an t to th e ag reem en t o nl y

if Dav is sat is fie d t he term s an d c on di ti on s o f th e ag reem en t. Dav is di d n otco m

pl y with t he term s b ecau se he di d n otful ly coo pe rat e wit h t he Gov ern m en t; th eref

or e, th e Gov ern m en t d idno t v io la te th e p le a ag reem en t.

III Fi na ll y , Davi s ar gu es sev eral ge ne ral vi ol at io ns of h is pl ea ag reem en t. Whe n a na lyzin g wh ethe r a d efen da nt ’s rig ht s h av e b een subs ta nt ia ll y affe ct edor pr ejud ic ed , we examin e th e th ree “ co re co nc ern s” of Rul e 1 1: “ (1 ) en su rin g t ha t th e g ui lt y pl ea i s fr ee o f co erci on ; (2 ) en surin g t ha t the de fen dantun de rs ta nd s the na tu re o f th e ch arg es ag ai ns t h im ; an d (3 ) en su rin g t ha t the de fen da ntis aware o f th e d ire ctco ns eque nc es of t he gu il ty ple a.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo nr oe , 35 3 F .3d 13 46 , 13 54 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . A ple a co ll oquy is n otgro un ds for rev ers al so lo ng as i t ad equa te ly addres se s the se th ree c or e co nc ern s. Id
. “ The re i s a st ro ng pre su m

pt io n t ha t the st at em en ts m ad e dur in g t he [pl ea] col lo qu y are tru e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Medlo ck, 12 F.3d18 5, 1 87 (11 thCir . 19 94 ). Dav is cla im s tha t the Gov ern m en t v io la te d apri orag reem en t tha t i t wo ul d di sm is s a c ou nt erfe it in g c ha rg e if he co op erat ed . Davi s d oe s n otpro vi de an y ev id en ce t o s up po rt t hi s as se rti on . Rath er, Dav is st at eddu rin g h is pl ea co ll oquy 4th athe di d n oten te r in to anora l ag reem en t wi th th e Gov ern m en t af te r hi s 2 00 5 arre stan d tha t the pl ea ag reem en t re pr es en te d the en ti re ag reem en t b etweenth e pa rti es . Dav is th enarg ue s tha t the Gov ern m en t fa il edto advi se th e co urt o f th e fu ll na tu re an d e xt en t o f hi s co op erat io n. Th e rec or d re fle ct s tha t the Gov ern m en t d id in fo rm th e co urt o f Dav is ’s coo pe rat io n. Th e Gov ern m en t ch arac te riz edDavi s’s co op erat io n a s “ un su cces sf ul ” an d e xp la in edth athe refu se d t o fu ll y co op erat e. Add it io na ll y , a Fed eral Law Enfo rcem en t Offi cer t es ti fie d t ha t Dav is ha d n ev er be entru th fu l, ca nd id , or c om pl et e in hi s d eb rie fin gs . Last ly, Dav is arg ue s tha t the Gov ern m en t i gn or edhi s re qu es ts forco un se l whe n Ag en ts di sc us se d h is pl ea ag reem en t wi th hi m an d the n i nc orrect ly adv is ed hi m ab ou t the term s o f th e ag reem en t. Ho wev er, Dav is adm it te d dur in g h is pl ea co ll oquy tha t h e h adth e o pp ortuni ty to d is cu ss hi s p le a ag reem en t wi th hi s at to rn ey s an d h is co un se l o f rec or d s ig ne d t he pl ea ag reem en t. Afte r rev ie win g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs an d t he reco rdbe fo re u s we fi ndno rev ers ib le erro r. AFFIRMED.

5