United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3630

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota

*

Christina Marie Langner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 15, 2001

Filed: July 11, 2001

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christina Langner contends that she was sentenced in error because the

government breached its obligations as set forth in her plea agreement. We disagree,

and affirm.

Langner and her boyfriend were caught buying methamphetamine (meth) in

March 2000. Police soon discerned that Langner was a minor player in her boyfriend’s

St. Cloud, Minnesota drug-trafficking ring. The government therefore negotiated her
1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

guilty plea to possessing meth with intent to distribute it, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §

841, in exchange for a reduced sentence.

In the plea agreement, Langner admitted selling pound quantities of meth in the

previous 11⁄2 to 2 years. The government generously agreed that it would not hold

Langner accountable for past drug sales. The government also agreed to move for a

downward departure at sentencing if Langner provided substantial assistance in solving

other crimes. Langner later assisted the government in solving a St. Cloud-area

burglary, but her other efforts to assist the government provided only stale leads.

Before sentencing, the government moved the district court1 to depart downward,

recommending a departure of only two offense levels because Langner’s assistance had

not been particularly helpful. Langner objected to the meager extent of the

government’s proposed departure on the ground that Langner had jeopardized her life

to assist the government. Counsel also stated that Langner deserved sympathy because

she had been forced to participate in her boyfriend’s drug trafficking under duress. The

government introduced evidence debunking these claims at the hearing. While

rebutting Langner’s claims of exemplary assistance, the government alluded to

Langner’s 2-year history of dealing meth as a reason not to depart downward more than

two levels. Langner immediately objected that consideration of her prior history of

drug selling was off-limits per the plea agreement. The district court overruled

Langner’s objection, departed downward two levels, and sentenced her to serve 48

months in prison—well below the Sentencing Guideline range.

On appeal, Langner claims that the government breached the terms of the plea

agreement and thereby inhibited the district court from departing even lower in its

sentencing determination. She contends that the plea agreement forbade the
-3-

government from raising her 2-year history of dealing meth as a justification for

departing downward only two levels because, according to the agreement, the

government could not hold her accountable for any drug-trafficking other than the four

pounds charged in the indictment. Langner’s claim amounts to an argument that the

district court should have departed downward further than it did, a claim we may not

review. See United States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d 1562, 1576-77 (8th Cir. 1996).

Even if we could review Langner’s claim, we believe that the government did

not breach the plea agreement. The plea agreement states that “[t]he government also

agrees not to attempt to hold the defendant accountable for any controlled substances

not referenced in Count 2 [which charges the 4-kilo sale].” Plea Agreement ¶ 4. This

provision prevented the government from increasing Langner’s sentence by

amalgamating drug quantities from past meth sales to trigger a higher base offense

level. This provision did not prevent the government from urging the district court to

depart downward only slightly (rather than greatly) based upon Langner’s 2-year

history of dealing meth, because Langner stipulated to that history in the agreement

itself. Id. ¶ 1 (“The defendant admits that . . . she and [her boyfriend] had been selling

pound quantities of methamphetamine together for the previous 1 1⁄2 to 2 years.”).

AFFIRMED.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.