FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MARCH 28, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1631 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00409 -CR- BBM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JOHN MI CHA EL LE DBE TT ER , D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 28, 200 6) Be fo re D U BIN A , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: JohnMi ch ae l L ed

be tte r ap pe al s hi s 24 -m onth se nte nc e fo r tr an sm itt ing a threatening comm

unication in interstate com m erce , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. §875 (c ). H e al le ge s th at

the gov er

nm en t br ea ch ed

his ple a ag re em en t by
re co m m en din g a6- le ve l e nhanc em en t, r athe r than a3- le ve l e nhanc em en t, pur suant2

to U
. S. S en te nc ing G uid el ine s M anua l §3 A 1. 2. W e ag re e, and v ac at e his sentence. Le dbetter negotiated a wr itten plea agreem ent with the governm ent in which the gov er nm en t a gr ee d to dis m iss som e ch ar ge s ine xc hange f or his a gr ee m en t t o ple ad gui lty to se ndi ng a

thr eate nin g c om

m uni catio n. L ed

be tte r adm itt ed

a t hi s Ru le 11 p le a co llo quy

that the gov er

nm en t c oul d pr ove that whil e he w as in a fe de ra l pr iso n inF lor ida , he c al le d hi s da ught er in G eo rg iaand thr eate ne d to
as sault his pr obatio n of

fi ce r. T he ple a ag re em en t i nc lud ed the gov er

nm en t’ s pr om ise to re co m

m en d a t se nte nc ing that L ed be tte r re ce ive a3- le ve l e nhanc em en t unde r the 200 4 ve rs ionof U
. S. S en te nc ing G uid el ine s M anua l §3 A 1. 2( a) be ca use the pr obatio n of

fi ce r w as an “ of

fi ci al vic tim

. . . and .
. . the of

fe nse of c onvi ct ion
wa s m otivated su ch status” . B ut the Presentence I nvestig ation Report (PSI ) instead sug gests a 6-level enhancem ent pursuant to U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §3A1.2(b) bec ause the victim wa s a governm ent officer , the off ense wa s m oti va te d by

suc h st at us, and L ed

be tte r’ s ba se of

fe nse le ve l w as f

ro m Ch ap te r 2, Part A
. The c ase procee ded to sentencin g where the governm ent contended th at the ple a ag re em en t w as “ int er na lly inc onsi ste nt” be ca

use it r equir ed appl ic at ionof the 2004 guidelin es but appliedthem incorrectly

by not inclu ding the 6-levelUnder the 2003 guidelines, §3A1.2 only allowed f

or a 3- level incr ease , not a 6-leve l 1 incre ase. U .S. SentencingGuidelines Manua l §3A1.2 (2003). Sec tion 3A1.2(a) of the 2004 guidelines incre ases a

defe ndant’s off

ense le vel by

3 if the victim was a g overnme nt office r and the offe nse wa s motivated by that status, while §3A1.2(b) inc rea ses the off ense le vel by

6 if the victim was a g overnme nt office r, the off ense w as motivated by

that status, and the def

endant’ s base of fense level is from Chapter 2, Part A, which L edbetter ’s offe nse wa s. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l §3A1.2(a) , (b). B eca use §3A1.2 states that the g reatest of subsections (a ), (b), or (c) should be applied, a

pplication of §3A1.2(b) nece ssarily would prec lude application of §3A1.2(a ). See U.S. SentencingGuidelines Manua l §3A1.2. 3 en h an ce m en tu n d er§ 3 A1 .2 (b ). Th e d i s tri ct co u rt th en re je ct edLe db et t er ’s 1
ar gum en t tha t the gov er

nm en t ha d br ea ch ed

the ple a ag re em en t by

not
recom m ending a 3-level e nhancem ent under §3A1.2(a) , f oundthat the plea ag re em en t’ s r ec om

m en da tio ns d id n ot b ind

the c ourt, and f

ound that, pur suant t o 18 U.S.C. §3 55 3, a g ui de li ne s s en te nc e wou ldbe reas on ab le
. W e re view de novo to a determ ination of w hether the governm ent has br each eda pl ea ag reem en t. U nit ed Sta tes v . M

ahi que , 150 F
. 3d 1 330, 133 2 ( 11th Ci r. 199 8) ( pe r curi am). Am at er ia l pr om ise by the gov er

nm en t, w hic h in duc es the de fen da nt to pl eadgu il ty, bi nd s t he go ve rn m en t t o t ha t p ro m is e. Sant obello v. Ne w Yo rk, 404 U. S. 257, 262, 92 S. C t. 495, 499, 30 L . E d. 2d 427 (197 1). When
a ple a re sts in any

sig nif ic an t po rt ionon the gov er nm en t’ s pr om ise or

a gr ee m en t, so tha t i t be co m es part

of the ind uc em en t or

c onsi de ratio n, suc h pr om ise m ust be fu lfi ll ed
. Id
.4

W e have also held that whether the district court considered or w as in flu en cedby the go ve rn m en t’s p os it io n o n t he sen te nc in g i ss ue is no t re le va nt . U nit ed Sta tes v . J

ohns on , 132 F. 3d 62 8, 630 (11th Cir. 1998) (per c uriam ). In Jo hnso n , w e he ld t

ha t, de spi te the f

ac t tha t the se nte nc ing c ourt i s no t bo und by the part ie s’ s a gr ee m en ts o r re co m m en da tio ns, w he n ana ly zi ng an a lle ge d vi olatio n of aple a ag re em en t, w e ne ed not “ ad dr es s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e xe rc ise of dis cr et ion in im posin g a sentence. Rather , w e focus on the governm ent’ s violatio n of its plea agreem ent.” Id
. ( em

pha sis om itt ed ) (quot ing United States v. T obon -H ernandez , 84 5 F .2d27 7, 2 80 (11 th Cir . 19 88 )). Whe n t he go ve rn m en t’s b reac h o f an ag reem en t h as be en est ab li sh ed , we m ay e ith er or de r spe ci fi c pe rf

orm an ce of

the a gr ee m en t by

m eans o f re se nte nc ing be fo re a d iff

eren t ju dg e o r al lo w wit hd rawal of t he pl ea. Santobe llo , 404 U. S. at 2 6 2 -6 3 , 9 2 S. Ct . a t4 9 9 . Al th o u g h th e c h o s en re m ed y i s wi th i n th e c o u rt ’s dis cr et ionw e have not

f av or ed w ith dr aw al of

the gui lty

ple a es pe ci al ly

w he n it is cl ear t ha t t he pl ea was kn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly ent ered
. Jo hnso n , 132 F. 3d at 631 (citations om itted). In U nit ed Sta tes v . T

ay lor , 77 F
. 3d 3 68 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) , w e he ld tha t the gove rn m en t br ea ch es aple a ag re em en t whe n it “ une qui voc al ly

pr om ise [s ] ” that i t
w oul d m ak e a part ic ular se nte nc ing r ec om m en da tio n, and the n a dvoc at es a5

po si ti on in co m

pa ti bl e wit h t he ful fil lm en t o f th atpro m is e. Id . at 3 70 -7 1. Se e als o U nit ed Sta tes v . T

hom pson , 403 F
. 3d 1 037 (8 th C ir
. 200 5)
. W e state d in Ta ylor : [i] t is in the best in terest of the governm ent, a s well a s the sy ste m

a s aw hol e, that de fe ndants be able to co unt on the gov er

nm en t ke ep ing the pr om ise s it m ak es in order to secure guilt y

pleas. Those broader intere sts as w el l a s e ac h in div idu al de fe ndant’ s in te re st i n r ec ei vin g the be ne fi t of

his barg ai n, r equir e that c ourts s tand r ea dy an d w ill ing to hol d th e gove rn m en t t o it s pr om ise s. Id . at 372. While Ta

ylor de al t w ithase nte nc ing r ec om m en da tio n ba se d ona fa ct ua l st ipu la tio n, and this c as e de al s w ithase nte nc ing r ec om m en da tio n ba se d on a g ui de li ne s ca lc ul at io n, Ta ylor sti ll pr ovi de s us w ithpe rs ua siv e gui danc e. T he gove rn m en t i n L ed

be tte r’ s c as e pr om ise d inthe ple a ag re em en t t o sp ec if ic al ly
recom m end that Ledbetter r eceive a 3-level enhancem ent under §3A1.2(a) for an

“ of fi ci al vic tim ” but

late r ad opt ed

the P SI ’ S re co m

m en da tio n of

§3A 1. 2( b) ’ s 6- le ve l i nc re as e that r es ult ed in a gr eate r se nte nc e. T hus, a s in Ta ylor , the governm ent unequi vocally prom ised that it would m ake a particular
re co m m en da tio n and b re ac he d th at pr om ise by

takin g apos iti on i nc om

pa tib le w ith the pr om ise
. A s in Ta

ylor , it w as r ea sona

ble f or L ed be tte r to unde rs tand tha t the gove rn m en t’ s pr om ise to m ak e that r ec om m en da tio n in cl ude d apr om ise not to adopt an incon sistent p ositio n, especia lly in ligh t of Fed. R. Crim . P . 11, which6

authorizes the governm ent to m ake a guideline calculation as part of a plea ag reem en t. See Fed. R. Crim . P . 11(c) (1)(B ). Be ca use ( 1) the gov er

nm en t t ook a posi tio n th at w as inc om

pa tib le w ithit s pr om ise and L ed

be tte r’ s pl ea

a gr ee m en t t o r ec om

m en d a3- le ve l e nhanc em en t pursuant to §3A1.2(a ) and (2), it wa s reasonable for L edbetter to understand th at the gov er nm en t’ s pr om ise to m ak e that r ec om m en da tio n in cl ude d apr om ise not to ad op t an in co ns is te nt po si ti on , th e g ov ern m en t b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t. A cc or din gly , w e va cate L ed be tte r’ s se nte nc e an d r em an d f or r e- se nte nc ing , hol din g th e gove rn m en t t o it s ob lig at ionin the ple a ag re em en t. S inc e the vol unt ar ine ss o f L ed

be tte r’ s gu ilty

ple a is n ot at i ssu e, w e fi nd n o ba sis to al low h i m t o wi th dra w h i s p l ea an dp ro ce edt o tri al . Gi v en th e S up re m e C o u rt ’s gui danc e in Santobe llo , w e re m and for re sentencing b efore a differ ent j udge. VACATED AND REMANDED.