T he H o no rable Jam es G
. C arr, C hi ef U ni t ed S t at es D i st ri ct J ud ge f o r t he N o rt hern D i st ri ct o f O hi o , s i t t i ng * b y de si gnat i o n. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0015n.06 Filed: January

9, 2009 No. 06-6493 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. MA NE US L . B I SHO P, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI ST R I CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE OPI NI ON

Before: M ARTIN and GILMAN, Cir cuit Judges; and CARR, C hief District Judge. * RONALD LEE GILMAN, Cir cuit Judge. Maneus Bishop enter ed int o a plea ag ree ment wi th t he g ov e rnme nt. P urs uan t to the a g re e me nt, he ple d guil ty to o ne c ount o f c on sp ir ingto dis tr ibute dr

ug s and to a no the r c ount of c on sp ir ing to la un de r mon e y . Bi sh op a lso a g re e d to a id i n the g overnme nt’s investigation of other cr imes. I n return, the g overn m en t p ro m i sed to ask the district court to sentenc e B ishop below the Sentenc ing Guidelin es rang e if he complied with the terms of the plea agr eeme nt. But the g overnme nt ultim ately ref used to do so afte r it determined that the ag ree ment had bee n brea ched by Bishop. The court, afte r sustaining the g overnme nt’s position, sentenc ed B ishop to a term of 275 months in prison. For the reasons set forth below, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.No. 06-6493

United States v. Bishop

- 2 - I. BACKG ROUND I n April 2005, a fe dera l gr and jury indicted B ishop and five c odefe ndants on char g es of conspiringto possess and dis tribute five kil og rams of powder coca ine and 50 g rams or more of cr ack
c oc a ine , a ll i n v iol a tio n o f 2 1 U. S .C
. §§ 841( a )( 1) , ( b) (1 )( A) , a nd 84 6. Ea c h o f t

he de fe nd ants , including B ishop, was also indict ed o n a ch arge of conspiringto launder mone y , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Bishop wa s separ ately indicted on seve ral other drug -re lated cha

rg es. I n July 20 05 , B ish op re a c he d a ple a a g re e me nt wi th the g ov e rnme nt, ple a din g g uil ty to b oth
c on sp ir a c y

c ounts . B ish op a g re e d, amon g oth e r t hin g s, to f

ull y c oo pe rate wi th t

he g ov e rnme nt, d i s cl o s e all of his asse ts, and to forfe it all drug proce eds and othe r prope rty . This included three
ve hic le s and

$1 ,0 00 in c a shthat B ish op po sse sse d w he n a se arc h w arr ant w a s e xec ute d at hi s residenc e. One provision of the ag ree ment require d the g overnme nt to file a motion for a downwa

rd depar ture fr om the SentencingGuidelines if B ishop provided substantial assi stance to the g overnme nt, but a separ ate provision stated that the g overnme nt w ould be relieve d of its obli g ations under the ag ree ment if Bishop gave a fa lse statement to a f eder al ag ent. The g overnme nt does not dispute that Bishop provided substantial a ssistance. B ut there is a dispute r eg arding whether the plea ag ree ment require d the g overnme nt to move for a downwar d depar ture even if

Bishop did not satisfy the oth e r t e rm s o f t

he a g re e me nt. The g overnme nt r efuse d to move for a downwar d depar ture at Bishop’s sente ncinghear ing be c a us e it c on te nd e d th a t B ish op ha d b re a c he d th e te rm s o f t he ple a a g re e me nt by

c on c e a lin g a sse ts. I t learne d of the a lleg ed concealment fr om letters sent by Bishop to a f

ellow inmate while B ishopNo. 06-6493

United States v. Bishop

- 3 - was in jail awa iting sente ncing . Bishop’s jailmate pr ovided the letter s to the go v er n m ent. They stated, amongother thin gs, that the g overnme nt “ain’t g oing to g et my quarte r million,” and that B ish op “ wa s n ot b ro ke ,” but “ ri c h. ” B ish op ’s le tte rs a lso state d t hat t he g ov e rnme nt “ wa

nte d h is money ,” but that he would not disg org e “his life saving s.” The gove rnment t here upon informed the district court that there would be no motion for a downwar d depar ture in B ishop’s sentence , arguing that B ish op ’s fa ilure to d isc los e and dis g or g e a ll o f h is asse ts r e lie ve d th e g ov e rnme nt o f i ts ob lig a tio n to make the mot ion un de r t he te rm s o f t

he ple a a g re e me nt. Bishop’s se ntencinghear ing took plac e in Novembe r 2006. During the hea ring , the district
c ourt a llo we d, but di d n ot req ui re, Bisho p to e xpla in t he state me nts in t

he le tte rs re g ard inghis

“ qu art e r m i l l i o n . ” B i s h o p c o n f

i r m e d th a tth e r e f

e r e n c e t o “ m y qu art e r

m i l l i o n , ” i f

t ak e nl i t e r a l l y,
wo uld me an th a t he ha d $ 25 0, 00 0 wai ting fo r h im u po n r e le a se fr om p ri so n. He ne ve rt he le ss te st if ied the state me nts we re e xag g e ratio ns c a lc ulate d to make him se lf loo k g oo d in

fr on t of his fellow inmate. The court did not believe his ex planation, findingthat the letters “ say what they say ,” and that “the re w as no re ason for y ou [i .e., Bishop] to write those notes unless they wer e true . No
rea son.” More over, the court found that Bi s h o p ’s misrepre sentation was in violation of the plea ag ree ment, s tating that “when you misrepre sent something, that y ou ag ree d y ou wouldn’t misrepre sent, that . . . ca

n be costly .” Bishop wa s s en t en ced to a term of 275 months in prison for his par ticipation in the drug
c o n s p i r a c y, t o b e s e r

v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y w i tha

t e r mo f 2 4 0 m o n th s ’ i mp r i s o n m e n to nth e m o n e ylaunder ing c harg e. This was a downwar d variance f

rom a ter m of 360 months to li fe in prison
rec ommended by

the Presente nce Re port (PSR) pursuant to the applicable Guidelines ra ng e.No. 06-6493

United States v. Bishop

- 4 - Af te r i mpo sin g the se nte nc e , the dis tr ic t c ourt a sk e d B ish op wh e the r h e ha d a ny ob je c tio ns . B ish op ’s on ly

ob je c tio n w a s that the PSR re lie d on pri or c on vic tio ns to e nh anc e his se nte nc e . T his was impermissible, ac cordingto Bishop, bec ause his prior convictions wer e not fa cts proven be y ond
a re asonable doubt before a jury in the present case . The district cour t overrule d the objection, and Bishop timely

appea led.
II. AN AL YSI S A. Whe th e r th e go ve r nm e nte st abl ishe d t hatBis hop br e ac he d t he ple a a gr e e m e nt B ish op argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fa c tua l fin din g that B ish op c on c e a le d mo ne y is
err oneous bec ause he does not ac tually have suc h funds. He also argues, i n the alternative, that eve n if he did have such funds, the g o v er nment has not met its burden of showingthat he bre ache d the plea a g ree ment. We will address ea ch conte ntion in turn. 1. The

dis tric t c ourt’

s f ac tua l f ind ing tha t Bis hop c onc e ale d a sse ts The district c ourt’s deter

minations that B ishop conce aled money from the g overnme nt and lied about it ar e fa ct u al finding s that will not be rever sed unless they are clea rly err oneous. See United States v. Ham ilton , 263 F.3d 645, 651 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (“This court will not set aside a district court’s f indings of f

act f rom a sente ncinghear ing unle ss the finding s are clea rly err oneous.”)
. Bishop maintains on appea l that he does not a ctually have $250,000 hidde n awa y , and that he wa s simply

brag g ing to make himself look good in f ront of a f ellow inmate. He attempts to show a cle ar e rror

by contendingthat neither the district co u rt nor the g overnme nt rea lly believed that Bishop wa s conce aling money . I f the district c ourt truly believed that he had lots of money , BishopNo. 06-6493

United States v. Bishop

- 5 - argues, then why

did the court a llow counsel to be a ppointed to r epre sent him, a nd why did the court not impose a fine on him? And i f t he gover nment actua lly believed B ishop had the money , then why did t h e g o v e r n me n t f a il to ( a ) c o n te s t B is h o p ’ s r e c e ip t o f a r e d u c ti o n in s e n te n c e f

o r acc epting responsibility , (b) move to withdraw from the pl ea ag ree ment, (c) conduct an ong oing inve stigation to f ind the mon e y , o r ( d) have B ish op take a po lyg ra phte st? But the district c ourt’s ac tions are not inconsistent with its finding that B ishop conce aled assets and l i ed ab o u t i t. The re cord doe s not support the claim that counsel wa s appointed by the court to re prese nt him. I nd ee d , Bishop’s c ounsel duringthe sentenc ing he aringwas not cour t appointed. F urthermor e, althoug h a cour t -a p p o i n ted attorne y

repr esente d Bishop on appe al, the lawy er w as a p p o i n t ed b y this court, not the district court. B ishop’s argument about his counsel sim ply ha s n o b e ari ngon

the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fa c tua l f ind ingthat B ish op c on c e a le d a sse ts. No r d oe s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s omi ssi on of a fi ne un de rm ine its fi nd ingin t hat r e g ard . A t be st, B ish op ha s d e mon str a te d th a t th e re c or d is un c le ar a s to why the c ourt did no t im po se a fi ne . T his hardly war rants a r ever sal of t he court’s fac tual finding . Vac ating Bishop’s se ntence on this iss ue might si mply induce the c ourt to impose a fine on B ishop to “corr ect” its oversig ht. I n sum, nothing in the rec ord supports the ac cusation that the court was beingdisinge nuous in finding that B ishop
c on c e a le d mo ne y

fr om t he g ov e rnme nt. Nor doe s the g overnme nt’s behav io r s u p p o r t B is hop’s contention that he did not ac tually hide money . The four enumer ated gove rnment actions listed above, even if acc urate , are not inconsistent wi th t he be lie f t hat B ish op ha s mo ne y

sta sh e d a wa y . E a c h o f t

he a c tio ns mig ht we ll be a str a te g ic choice that falls within the scope of the gover nment’s prosec utorial discre tion—and as such is notNo. 06-6493

United States v. Bishop

- 6 - rea dily susceptible to appe llate re view. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . D e rrick , 163 F.3d 799, 824- 25 (4th Cir. 1998) (“ The c asela w is leg end fr om the Supreme Court and the courts of appea ls that the i n v es t i gat o ry

an d p ro s ec u t o ri al fu n ct i o nre s t s ex cl u s i v el y wi thth e E x e c u t i v e. ”) (c i t i n g W ayte v
. United States , 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985)). Mor eover , Bishop h as n o t offer ed a pe rsuasive r eason why the district court’s f

actua l finding should in any way depend on the subjective state of mind of the g overnme nt’s attorney s in this case. I n sum, the district court re lied on letters wr itten by Bishop himself in findingthat Bishop had conc eale d substantial funds from the g overnme nt and lied about it. The c ourt also found that Bishop’s e x planation for why these wr itten statements should not be believe d was itself implausible. Bishop has f

ailed to convince us that the district court er red, le t alone that its factual f indings we re
c le arl y e rr on e ou s. 2. Bis hop ’s pur

po rte d b re ac h of

the ple a a gre e ment We reviewde novo the question of whe ther B ishop breac hed the plea ag ree ment. See U

nited Sta te s v . S wan be rg , 370 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2004)
. Such ag ree ments “ar e contra ctual in nature, and as suc h, courts are g uided by g ener al principles of contra ct interpre tation when construingplea agr ee m en t s .” Un ite d S

tates v . M

on c iv ais , 4 9 2 F
. 3 d

6 5 2 , 6 6 2 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )
. M o r e o v e r , “ [t]he deter minative fac tor in interpre ting a plea a g ree ment is not the parties’ actua l understandingof the te rm s o f t he a g re e me nt; instead , an a g re e me nt m us t be c on str

ue d a s a re a so na ble pe rs on

wo uld interpre t its wo rds.” Id. at 663. Ambig uities in a plea a g ree ment are construed a g ainst the g overnme nt, id. a t 66 2, and the g ov e rnme nt b e ars the burd e n of pr ov ing a br e a c h if it a lle g e s th a t a brea ch has oc curr ed. Un ite d S tates v . B e nja mi n , 138 F.3d 1069, 1074 ( 6th Cir. 1998).No. 06-6493

United States v. Bishop

- 7 - Parag raphs 5 a

nd 6 of the plea ag ree ment require d Bishop to “c ooperate fully , truthfully , and completely” under

the plea a g ree ment. In para g raph 7, the ag reement provided that in the e vent Bishop “c ommit[ s] perjury or g ive[s] a fa lse statement to a f eder al ag ent, t hen the United States . . . wi ll b e fr e e to w ith dr aw f ro m th is p le a

a g re e me nt o r b e re lie ve d o f i ts o bli g a tio ns un der th is ag ree ment.” And pa

rag raph 16 of

the ag ree ment require d Bishop to forfe it to the Unite d S t at es immediately and voluntarily

any and all asse ts and p r o p e rty , o r p o rti o n s th e r e o f , s u b je c t to f o r f e it ur e a s p r o c e e d s o f [B is h o p’s] drug distribution activiti es or a ssets used to fac ilitate the distribution of cocaine hy drochloride s or coc aine ba se, which a re in the posse ssion or control of [Bishop or his] nominees. [Bishop] further agree s to fully assist the g overnme nt in the re cover y and re turn to the United States any assets or portions thereof subjec t to forfe iture. [Bishop] furt h er agr ee s to make a f ull and complete disclosure of all asse ts over wh ic h [he ] exe rc ise s c on tr ol a nd tho se whi ch are h e ld o r c on tr oll e d b y thi s a g re e me nt. On appe al, B ishop maintains that he did not materially brea ch the ter

ms of the plea a g ree ment even if he did fa il to dis close a ssets to t h e go v ernment. He first ar g ues that the a g ree ment specific ally

enumer ates qua

ntities of cash a

nd other a ssets that he agree d to forfe it. The fac t that the ag ree men t d id

n o t i d e n ti f

y th e $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 in

c a s hs u g g e s ts , a c c o r d in g to B is h o p , th a t h e w a s n ot require d to disgorg e that amount. B ishop also ar gu es t h at h is ag ree ment to cooper ate with the g ov e rnme nt e xten de d o nly “ in r e g ard s to his cr imi na l pur su its of oth e rs .” A f e w o ff ha nd c omm e nts to a fe llow inmate did not, Bis hop contends, be lie cooper ation in the pursuit of others. B ishop
asser ts for these r easons that ther e wa s no material brea ch of a term essential to the purpose of the contra ct. The g overnme nt responds by arguing that Bishop bre ache d the plea a g ree men t b y (a) failing to disclose assets (unde r ¶ 16) , (b) r efusingt o fo rf ei t d rugproce eds (a lso under ¶ 16) , (c)No. 06-6493

United States v. Bishop

- 8 - ref using to c ooperate truthfully (under ¶¶ 5, 6) , and (d) g iving f alse stateme nts to a fede ral a g ent (under ¶ 7). We find the g overnme nt’s response persua sive. Bishop ag ree d in pa ragraph 16 of

the plea ag ree ment to “make a full and c omplete disclosure of all assets over

which [he] ex erc ises control and those which a

re he ld and controlled by

[t he plea ag ree ment].” Bishop neve r explains how his written decla ration of hiding$250,000 is consistent with the plain lang uage of this particular disclosure require ment. Moreove r, the district court’s finding that Bishop concea led funds necessar ily implies that he lied to f

eder al ag ents about the amount of assets that he possessed, in violation of paragraph 7. The g overnme nt has there fore established by a pre pondera

n ce o f the evidenc e that B ishop brea ched at least two independe nt terms of his plea a g ree ment by failing to disclose assets. W e thus
se e no ne e d to fu

rt he r de te rm ine wh e the r B ish op br e a c he d o the r p ro vis ion s o f t he ple a a g re e me nt. B. Bur de n of pr ov ing a br e ac h of t he ple a a gr e e m e nt Bishop maintains that the district court improperly shifted t he burden of proof by relying on Bi s h o p ’ s s e n te n c in g - h e ar in g te s ti mo n y in d e te r mi n in g th a t h e b r e a c h e d

th e p le a a g r e e me n t. B ut B i s h o p c i t e s n o a

u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n th a t , b y e v a l u a t i n g a d e f e n d an t ’ s v o l un t ar

y t e s t i m o n y,
a cour t thereby improperly

shifts the evidentiary

burden to the de fenda

nt. The ver

y rea son that Bishop chose to testify

was to try

to rebut the e vidence proffere d by the gov ernme nt t o s a t i s f y its burden—that is, the letters the g overnme nt obtained from B ishop’s jailmate. We theref ore c onclude that the district court did not improperly shift the burden of

establishing a

brea ch to B ishop. C. Whe th e r th e go ve r nm e ntaffir m at ive ly b r e ac he d t he ple a a gr e e m e ntNo. 06-6493

United States v. Bishop

- 9 - B ish op c ite s United States v. Villareal , 491 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2007), t o support his claim that wher e a defe ndant has provided subst antial assis tance to the g overnme nt under the te rms of a ple a
a g re e me nt, the g ov e rnme nt m us t move f

or a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e if the a g re e me nt s o r e qu ir e s. Bishop next maintains that the only reme dy available for a

brea ch in this case is to void the plea
a g re e me nt i n it s e nti re ty , w hic h B ish op a sse rt s w ou ld h ave the e ff e c t of le tti ngthe c a se pr oc e e d to trial. Be cause these a

rguments were not r aised below, we will eva luate them under the plain-e rror standard of

revie w. S

e e J o h n s o n v . U

n ite d States , 520 U.S. 461, 465-67 (1997) ( citing F ed. R. Crim. P . 52(b))
. Bishop’s claims fail on t he mer its. Villareal establishes that whe re the g overnme nt promises that it “will” move for a downwar d depar

ture ba sed on a de fenda nt ’s providing “substantial
ass is ta n c e , ” th e g o v e r

n me n t w il l o r d in ar il y b e c o mp e ll e d to d o s o o n c e it d e te r mi n e s that the d ef en d ant indeed pr ovided such a ssistance. Villareal , 4 91 F .3 d at 60 9- 10 . B ut Vi lla re al a lso im p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e s t h a tt h e g o v e r n m e n ti s e xc u s e d

f r o mi t s d u ty i f th e d e f e n d an to th e r

w i se brea ches the plea a g ree ment. Id. a t 61 0 (e xpla ini ng that wh e re the g ov e rnme nt d e c ide s n ot t o f ile a motion for a r eduction in sentenc e, the g overnme nt must establish t hat the def endant br eac hed the p l ea a g ree ment). In Villareal , the g overnme nt abandone d its contention that the defe ndant had brea ched his plea

ag ree ment, and ther efor e wa s not permitted to argue on appe al that the def endant’ s alleg ed bre ach e x cused it fr om moving for a downwa

rd depa rture f rom the Guidelines r ang e. Id. at 610-11 (notingthat the g overnme nt in Vi lla re al had f ai l ed t o p oint to any

evidenc e in the
rec ord indicatingthat a bre ach ha d occur red) . In this case, howe ver, the g overnme nt did not abandonNo. 06-6493

United States v. Bishop

- 10 - its claim that Bishop brea ched the plea a g ree ment. The g overnme nt also pointed to evidenc e in the
rec ord to support its claim that a bre ach ha d occur red. Villareal

is theref ore disting uishable. Bishop’s se cond ar g ument—that the only reme dy available wh e r e o n e p a

r ty b r e ache s the plea
a g re e me nt is to vo id it— fa ils be c a us e the a g re e me nt do e s no t so lim it the g ov e rnme nt’ s r e me die s. Parag raph 7 of

the plea ag ree ment provides that “[s] hould the defe ndant commit perjury or g ive a false statement to a fe dera l ag ent, then the United States will be fre e to pr osecute defe ndant for that offe nse and w ill be f

ree to withdraw fr om this pl ea a g ree ment or be r elieved of its obli g ations under this ag ree ment.” Bishop’s failure to disclose the $250,000 evide nces a manifest misrepr esentation of his tot a l a sse ts t o f

e de ra l a g e nts . T his re lie ve d th e g ov e rnme nt o f i ts c on dit ion a l ob lig a tio n to move for a

downwar d depar

ture. The district court did not plainly err in declining to conclude otherwise. D. The di strict

court’ s construction of the Sentencing Guidelin es I n addition to the above -discussed a rguments based on the ple a agree ment, Bishop ar g ues for the first time on appe al that the district cour t proce durally

err ed by construingthe Senten ci ng Gu ide lin e s to be mand a tor y . Su c h a

c on str uc tion wou ld be contr ary to United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Plain-err or review applies be cause the ar g ument was not ra ised below. See United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382 , 38 6 (2 00 8) (a pp lying the ru le that if a se nte nc ingjud g e a sk s, during the sentenc ing he aring , whether there is any

object i o n t h at has not previously been r aised,

“ and if the re le va

nt p art y do e s n ot o bje c t, t

he n p lai n-er ror re vie w a pp lie s o n a

pp e a l to tho se arguments not preser

ved in the district cour

t.”).No. 06-6493

United States v. Bishop

- 11 - There is no indication that the district court viewe d the Guidelines to be ma ndatory in nature. The c ourt expressly

ref err ed to t he Guidelines as “advisory .” And the cour t sentence d Bishop to 275
m o n t h s i n p ri s o n , wh i ch i s an 8 5 -m o n th d o wn wa rd v ar i an ce fr o mth e ap p l i cab l e G u i d el i n es ra n ge of 36 0 mo nth s to lif

e in p ri so n. Th e c ourt wo uld no t have imp os e d a be low -Guid e lin e s se nte nc e if it truly thought that the Guidelines wer e mandatory . Bishop’s a rgument has fa iled to identify an
err or, plain or other

wise, in the cour

t’s understandingof the Guide lines’ advisory nature
. E. Us e of pr iorc onv ic ti ons doe s no t v iol at e th e Six th Am e ndm e nt B ish op ’s fi na l argume nt i s th a t the dis tr ic t cou rt e rr e d in re lying on his pr ior c on vic tio ns in calc ulating the Guidelines ra ng e. He contends that such c onv i ct i o ns are fac ts that must be established by the j ury that would have hear d the present char g es aga inst him but for his guilty plea. This a rgument, howeve r, squar ely contra dicts this court’s binding pr ece dent. See United St ates v. Branch , 537 F.3d 582, 593 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (“ T h e S u p re me Court has re peate dly held that unlike other sente nce- enhanc ing f acts, no Six th A mendment problem arises when a district c ourt finds the fac t of a p r io r c o nviction.”) (c iting, amongother c ases, Almendarez- Torres v. United States , 5 23 U. S. 22 4, 23 5 ( 19 98 )) . B ish op ’s argume nt i s th e re fo re wi tho ut m e ri t.
III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.