FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT May 29, 2008 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. 07- 14087 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - 0 0 0 3 7 - C R - OR L - 2 2 - UA M 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 W O O D Y D A N I E L F R A N K L I N , 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

_________________________ ( M ay 29, 2008) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

W oody D a ni e l F r a nkl i n a ppe a l s hi s 100- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea t o p osse ss i on of chi l d p orno graphy, 18 U . S . C . § 2 25 2A (a )( 5)(B ), ( b ) ( 2 ) . F r a n k lin a s s e r ts th e G o v e r n m e n t b r e a c h e d h is p le a a g r e e m e n t b y f a ls e ly in f o r m in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t F r a n k lin h a d v id e o ta p e d h im s e lf h a v in g s e x w ith a n u n d e r a g e g ir l, a n d th a t th is e r r o rw a s p la in . F r a n k lin c o n te n d s th e p r o v is io n in the pl e a a gr e e m e ntw he r e by the G ove r nm e ntr e s e r ve d the r i ghtt o pr e s e ntt o the di stri ctcourtfa ctual i nform at i on abou tF ra nk l i n and hi s c ri m i nal ac t i vi t i es i m pl i c i t l y r e qui r e d the G ove r nm e ntonl y t o pr e s e nttruthf ul i nf or m a t i on a bout F r a nkl i n. We r e v i e w de no vo w h e th e rth e g o v e r n m e n t b r e a c h e d a p le a a g r e e m e n t. U ni t e d Stat e s v . M

ahi que , 15 0 F . 3d 13 30 , 13 32 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ). H ow ever , w here , as here , there w as no cont em po ra neou s obj ec t i on i n t he di stri ctcourt , w e r evi ew o n ly f o rp la in e r r o r . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . R om ano , 31 4 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 81 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). U nd erpl ai n err or re vi ew , w e m ay re cogn i ze an error w here there i s ( 1) an error, (2) thati s pl ai n, (3) thataf fe ct s a defe nd ant ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s, and (4) that s e r io u s ly a f

f e c ts th e f a ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . Id . A d e f

e n d a n t ’ s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s a r e a f f e c t e d i f th e e r r o ra f

f e c t e d th e o u t c o me of the pr oc e e di ngs ; tha ti s , w he r e the r e i s a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty of a di f f e r e nt r e s ul t , s uc h a pr oba bi l i ty be i ng one s uf f i c i e ntt o unde r m i ne c onf i de nc e i n the3

o u tc o m e . U

ni t ed St at es v. R odri

gu ez , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1299 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he d e f e n d a n t h a s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w e r e a f f e c te d . Id .

“ T he gove r nm e nti s bound by a ny m a t e r i a l pr om i s e s i tm a ke s t o a de f e nda nt as partof a pl ea agre em entthati nd uces the defendantt o p l ea d g ui l ty. ” U ni t ed Stat e s v . T

ay l or , 77 F . 3d 368, 370 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . “ F ur the r m or e , w he the rthe g o v e r n m e n t v io la te d th e a g r e e m e n t is ju d g e d a c c o r d in g to th e d e f e n d a n t's re as on abl e und er st andi ng atthe t i m e he e nt er ed hi s pl ea . ” I d. ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . W h ere th e g o v ern m en tb reach es a p l ea ag reem en t , w e h av e th e d i scret i o n t o ch o o se be tw e e n tw o r e m e di e s : ( 1) “ l e a ve the gui l ty pl e a i nt a c ta nd r e m a nd the c a s e f or r e s e nt e nc i ng be f

or e a di f f e r e ntj udge ; ” or( 2) pe r m i tthe de f e nda ntt o w i thdr a w the g u ilty p le a . I

d. a t371- 72. E v e n if th e G o v e r n m e n t b r e a c h e d th e p le a a g r e e m e n t, th e r e w a s n o p la in e r r o rb e c a u s e F r a n k lin c a n n o t s h o w th a t h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w e r e a f f e c te d . A l tho ug h h e di d n otar gu e bef ore the di stri ctcourtthathi s pl ea agre em enthad b ee n b re ac h ed , F ra n k li n d id b rin g th e G o v er n m en t’ s f ac tu al er ro r to th e d istrict co u rt’s a t t e nt i on a f

t e rs e nt e nc i ng, a nd the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d i tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d the sa m e s ent ence re gardl es s. U nd erthese ci rc um st ance s, F ra nk l i n canno tshow thereF r ankl i n ’ s a rgum e ntth ati ti s i r

r e l e v ant wh e th e r th ed i s tri c tc o urtw a s a f

f e c t e d b y a 1 brea ch in inapplicablehere . Although theSupreme Court and this Court have indica ted that e ve n a dis tric t c ourt ’sstate me nt t hat it did no t c on sid e r inf

or matio n o r a

rguments imp roperly presented by

the g overnme nt will not rectify the bre ach of

a plea agreement, se ee .g. S

an tob e llo v . New York, 9 2 S. Ct. 49 5, 49 9 ( 19 71 ); United States v. Tobon-Hernandez , 845 F.2d 277, 280 (11th Cir. 1988), these c ases were not on plain error review. While a district court’s nonconsideration of improper infor mation or argument may

not rec tify

a bre ach, theprejudiceprong of the plain e rror

test is sti ll applicable. See U nited States v. Thayer , 2 04 F .3 d 1 35 2, 13 56 (1 1th Cir. 2000) (apply

ing substantial rights prongof the plain e rror test to breac h of plea

agreement claim). 4 is a n y p r o b a b ility , b u t f o rth e e r r o r , a d if

f e r e n t s e n te n c e w o u ld h a v e b e e n im p o s e d . See R odri

gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at12 99 . T hu s, w e a ff i rm F ra nk l i n’ s s ent ence . 1 AF F I RME D.