FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT FEB RUARY 15 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12946 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 4 9 - CR- J - 9 9 - M CR U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A N T H O N Y C O N R A D B E E K S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 15, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A n th o n y C o n r a d B e e k s a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to2

di sm i ss an i nd i ctm entchar gi ng hi m w i th i dent i ty theftand credi tca rd fr aud. A ft er r e vi e w , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de ni e d B e e ks ’ s m ot i on a nd a f f ir m B e e k s ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I . B AC KG RO UN D I n M a y 2 0 0 3 , B e e k s p le d g u ilty to c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it b a n k f r a u d , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 3 71 . T he “ F ac tual B as i s” att ac hed t o and i ncorpo ra t ed i n t o th e w ri t t en p l ea ag reem en tst at ed th at , i n ap p ro x i m at el y Ju n e 1 9 9 9 an d A u g u st 2 0 0 0 , B e e k s c o n s p ir e d w ith a n o th e rin d iv id u a l, M ilto n B . M ille r , to a s s is t p e o p le w i th b ad cr edi tt o o bt ai n fra ud ul entaut om ob i l e l oans fr om fe dera l l y i nsured fi nanci al i nst i tut i on s. S peci fi ca l l y, for a fe e, M i l l erw ou l d p rovi de the ca r- bu ye rs w i th f a l s i f i e d c r e di ti nf

or m a t i on i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe c a r - buy e re a r ne d m or e tha n he or she a ctual l y di d, and t hen B ee ks w ou l d send t he ca r- bu ye rs t o fi nanci al i nst i tut i on s w here he had p ai d em pl oyee s t o p roce ss ca r- bu ye rs ’ fr audu l entl oan a p p lic a tio n s . T he pl e a a gr e e m e nta l s o c ont a i ne d a pr ovi s i on i n w hi c h the gove r nm e nt agre ed no tt o p ursue other f eder al char ges kno w n t o t he U . S . A t t orney a nd “ re l at ed t o co n d u ctg i v i n g ri se t o th e p l ea ag reem en t , ” as fo l l o w s:

4. N o F urther C harges If the courtac ce pt s thi s pl ea agre em ent , the U ni t ed S t at es A tto r n e y ’s O f

f ic e f o rth e M id d le D i s t r i c t o f F lo r id a a g r e e s n o t to3

char ge the defendantw i th com m i t t i n g an y other f eder al cr i m i nal of f e ns e s know n t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s A t t or ne y’ s O ffi ce a tthe t i m e of th e e x e c u tio n o f

th is a g r e e m e n t, r e la te d to th e c o n d u c t g iv in g r is e to th is p le a a g r e e m e n t. T he pl e a a gr e e m e nta l s o s t a t e d tha ti tw a s the e nt i r e a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n the gove r nm e nta nd B e e ks , a nd tha tno othe rpr om i s e s , a gr e e m e nt s orr e pr e s e nt a t i ons ex i st ed o r h ad b een m ad e t o B eek s o r h i s at t o rn ey. I n F e brua r y 2004, the gove r nm e ntobt a i ne d a n i ndi c t m e nta ga i ns tB e e ks c ha r gi ng hi m w i th i de nt i ty the f tof a m a n na m e d D a vi d J . B i r d, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 ( a ) ( 7 ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) , a n d c r e d it c a r d f r a u d , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 10 29 (a )( 2) and (c)( 1), betw ee n Jun e 24, 20 02 and O ct ob er24 , 20 02 . B ee ks m ov ed t o d i sm i ss the i nd i ctm entbase d o n t he “ N o F urther C harges ” provi si on i n h i s pl ea agre em entfor the bank fr aud con spi ra cy offe nse. A ft erho l di ng an evi dent i ary h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d B e e k s ’s m o tio n , f in d in g th a t, b e c a u s e th e id e n tity the f ta nd c r e di tc a r d f

r a ud c ha r ge s w e r e notr e l a t e d t o B e e ks ’ s c onduc ttha tga ve ri se t o t he bank fr aud charge, the go vernm entdi d n otbrea ch the “ N o F urther C h a r g e s ” c la u s e o f

th e p le a a g r e e m e n t. B eek s p l ed g u i l ty t o th e i d en t i ty th eftan d cred i tcard frau d ch arg es, r e s e r v in g h is r ig h t to a p p e a l th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t. T hi s a ppe a l f

ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ONWe reviewde novo whe ther the g overnment has breached a plea agreement when, a s 1 here , the def

endant preser

ved that argument in district court. United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 1104 ( 11th Cir. 2004). The district cour t’s fac tual finding s reg ardingthe scopeof the a gre e me nt, inc ludingtheg ov e rnme nt’ s p ro mis e s, wi ll o nly bese t a sid eif

they arec le arly erroneous. I d. at 1105. 4 O n a p p e a l, B e e k s a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to di s m i s s the i ndi c t m e nt . A c c or di ng t o B e e ks , the “ N o F ur the rC ha r ge s ” pr ovi s i on of hi s pri or pl ea agre em entbarr ed the go vernm entfr om bri ng i ng the i dent i ty theft and credi tca rd charges cont ai ned i n t he pres enti nd i ctm ent . W e di sa gree . 1 W he n a gui l ty pl e a “ r e s t s i n a ny s i gni f i c a ntde gr e e on a pr om i s e or a gr e e m e ntof

the pr os e c ut or , s o tha ti tc a n be s a i d t o be pa r tof the i nduc e m e ntor c o n s i d e r a t i o n , s u c h p r o mi s e mu s tb e f u l f i l l e d . ” Sa n t o b e l l o v . N e w Y o r k , 4 0 4 U . S. 257, 262, 92 S . C t . 495, 499 ( 1971) . “ [ I ] n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe gove r nm e nt ha s br e a c he d a pl e a a gr e e m e nt , w e m us tf i r s tde t e r m i ne the s c ope of the gove r nm e nt ’ s pr om i s e s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ope l a nd, 381 F . 3d 1101, 1105 ( 11 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . T o d e t e r m i n e th e m e a n i n g o f a n y d i s p u t e d t e r m s i n th e a g r e e m e n t , we appl y a n o bj ec t i ve st andard, deci di ng w hether the go vernm ent ’ s a ct i on s a re c o n s is te n t w ith w h a t th e d e f e n d a n t r e a s o n a b ly u n d e r s to o d w h e n e n te r in g h is g u ilty p le a . I d . In det er m i ni ng the sc op e of the pl ea agre em ent , w e m ustfi rs tdeci de w hether the l angu age i n t he pl ea agre em enti s a m bi gu ou s. “ If i ti s, w e w i l l consi derThe standa rds applied to the inter

pretation of ambiguous plea agreements include the 2 following : (1) the c ourt should avoid a “hy per- technical rea ding of

the written agreement” or employing “ a rig idly

literal approach in the c onstruction of languag e”; ( 2) “thewritten agreement should be viewe d ag ainst the bac kground of the ne g otiations and should not be interpre ted to direc tly

contra dic[t] [an] oral understanding ”; and ( 3) ambiguous terms should be read ag ainst the g overnment. United States v. J eff erie s, 908 F.2d 1520, 1523 (11th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in orig inal). 5 e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e of

the pa r t i e s ’ i nt e nti n a r r i vi ng a ta n i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the a gr e e m e nt ’ s l a ngua ge a nd w i l l r e l y on [ r e c ogni z e d] s t a nda r ds of i nt e rpr e t a t i on; othe r w i s e , w e a r e l i m i t e d t o the una m bi guous m e a ni ng of the l a ngua ge i n the a gr e e m e nt . ” I d. a t1106. 2 H e r e , B e e ks ’ s c l a i m tha tthe gove r nm e ntbr e a c he d the pl e a a gr e e m e nttur ns on the s c ope of

the “ N o F ur the rC ha r ge s ” pr ovi s i on. S pe c i f i c a l l y , w e m us tde c i de w he the rB e e ks ’ s i de nt i ty the f ta nd c r e di tc a r d f

r a ud c ha r ge s a r e “ r e l a t e d t o the cond uctgi vi ng ri se t o t hi s pl ea agre em ent . ” F i rs t , w e f

i nd no fa ci al am bi gu i ty t o t he ph ra se “ re l at ed t o t he cond uct gi vi ng ri se t o t hi s pl ea agre em ent . ” T he t er m “ re l at ed t o” i s use d i n i t s ordi nary s e n s e t o m e a n c o n n e c t e d t o o ra s s o c i a t e d wi th . T h u s , th e p l a i n m e a n i n g o f th e “ No F urther C harges ” provi si on i s thatthe go vernm entagre es no tt o b ri ng any other char ges i n con nect i on w i th B ee ks’ s par t i ci pat i on i n t he bank fr aud schem e. S ec on d, no defe nd antcoul d h ave r ea sonabl y und er st oo d t he ph ra se “ re l at ed to th e c o n d u c t g iv in g r is e to th is p le a a g r e e m e n t” to in c lu d e B e e k s ’s s te a lin g D a v id J. B i rd’ s i dent i ty a nd engagi ng i n cre di tca rd fr aud. B ee ks’ s pre se ntoffe nses bearTh edis tric t c ourt c on c lud e d th at th ephra se“ re late d to thec on du c t g ivingri seto t his 3 plea agreement” wa s ambiguous and considered extrinsic evidenceto conclude that the instant 6 no r e l a t i on t o the ba nk f r a ud c onduc t . F i r s t , the y a r e t e m por a l l y di s t i nc t . T he ba nk f r a ud oc c ur r e d be tw e e n 1999 a nd 2000. T he i de nt i ty the f ta nd c r e di tc a r d f

r a ud oc c ur r e d be tw e e n J une a nd O c t obe r , 2002, tw o y e a r s l a t e r . S e c ond, the ba nk f r a ud i n v o l v e d q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n tmi s c o n d u c t . Be e k s ’ s r o l e i n th e b a n k f r a u d s c h e me w as t o d i re ctprospect i ve ca r buyer s r ef erre d b y hi s c o-conspi ra t or t o em pl oyee s a t fi nanci al i nst i tut i on s w ho m B ee ks had al re ady pai d t o p roce ss the fr audu l entl oan a p p lic a tio n s . T h is c o n d u c t d id n o t in v o lv e e ith e rid e n tity th e f t o rc r e d it c a r d f

r a u d . T h ird , th e tw o se ts o f o ff en se s in v o lv ed d iffe re n t i n d iv id u als. S p ec ifically, B ee k s’s c o - c o n s p ir a to rin th e b a n k f r a u d , M ille r , w a s n o t im p lic a te d in B e e k s ’s id e n tity theftand credi tca rd fr aud, and B ee ks’ s vi ct i m i n t he i dent i ty theftand credi tca rd f r a u d , B ir d , w a s n o t im p lic a te d in th e b a n k f r a u d . I n d e e d , th e o n ly th in g th e s e tw o s e ts o f o f f e n s e s h a v e in c o m m o n is B e e k s . H o w ev er , t o b e b ar re d b y th e p lea a g re em en t, th e c h ar g es m u st re late to B ee k s’s cond ucti n t he bank fr aud schem e, no tj ustt o B ee ks hi m se l f. L i kew i se , the fa ct th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t m a y h a v e b e g u n in v e s tig a tin g B e e k s ’s id e n tity th e f t a n d c r e d it c a r d f r a u d w h ile h e w a s u n d e ra r r e s t f o rb a n k f r a u d d o e s n o t m e a n th a t th e id e n tity the f ta nd c r e di tc a r d f

r a ud a r e “ r e l a t e d t o” B e e ks ’ s c onduc ti n the ba nk f r a ud sc hem e. 3charg es did not fall within the scope of g overnment’s promise not to bringfurther charg es. Specifically , the district court c onsidered thefollowing : (1) at the time B eeks w as ar rested on bank fraud cha

rg es in Februar

y 2003, evidenc e wa s collecte d duringa sea rch of his residenc e that might havesupported identity theft and c redit ca

rd fraud cha

rg es; (2) postal inspec tors interviewe d Be eks at that time re g ardinga complaint of c redit ca rd/identity

theft re lating to B ird; (3) B eeks’ s counsel wa s told by the prosecutor that the g overnment believed B eeks ma y have participated in cre dit card f raud; (4) Be eks’s c ounsel had a sked for , but had been ref used, a promise from the g overnment to drop any cre dit card f

raud c harg es; and (5) the g overnment had threatened B eeks’ s counsel with the possibility of more serious bank fraud cha rg es under

a superse ding indictment. B eca use weconcludethat the phra se is not ambiguous, our rulingdoes not rely upon the extrinsic evidenceconsidere d by the district court. SeeCopeland, 381 F .3d at 1106 (explaining that, where theplea agreement’s languag e is unambiguous, the court is limited to that unambiguous me aningand does not c onsider extrinsic evidence ). However, even if the languag e is ambiguous, the district court did not err in denying themotion becausethe above listed ex trinsic evidenc e supports the c onclusion that the “No F urther Cha rg es” provision of the ple a a gre e me nt did n ot b ar t

heidenti ty

the ft and c re dit c ard fra ud c ha rg e s. 7 B e c a us e the gove r nm e ntdi d notbr e a c h the ba nk f r a ud pl e a a gr e e m e ntby b r in g in g th e id e n tity th e f t a n d c r e d it c a r d f

r a u d c h a r g e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d en ied B ee k s’s m o ti o n to d ism iss th e in d ictm en t. T h er ef o re , w e a ff

irm B ee k s’s conv i ct i on and sent ence . AF F I RME D.