FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 26, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 13 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 9- cr-0 04 33 -PAS-6 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us EDGAR VALL EJO, a.k .a. Bet o, a.k .a. Git an o, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 26 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON, an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Edg ar Val le

jo ap pe al s h is sen te nc e im po se d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty toen ga gi ng in a co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e b y vi ol at in g fe de ral narco ti cs laws , 21 U.S.C. § 8 48 . On ap pe al , he a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt b reac he d the bi nd in g pl ea ag reem en t b y

im po si ng a te rm

of s up erv is edrel eas e. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we vac at e an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g wi th ou t s up erv is edrel eas e. I. Ina supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t, Val le jo was ch arg edwith c on sp iri ng to po ss es s wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m or e th anfiv e k il og ram s o f a m ix tu re an d s ub st an ce co nt ai ni ng co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 46 U.S.C. app . § 1 90 3( a), (h ), (j) (reco di fie d i n 20 06 at 4 6 U.S.C. § 70 50 3, 7 05 06 ) (Co un t 1 ); p os se ss in g wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e m or e th anfiv e k il og ram s o f a m ix tu re an d s ub st an ce co nt ai ni ng co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 46 U.S.C. app . § 1 90 3( a) (re co di fie d i n 2 00 6 a t 4 6 U.S.C. § 70 50 3) (Co un t 2 ); a nden ga gi ng in a co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e b y vi ol at in g fe de ral na rco ti cs laws , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 48 (Co un t 3 ). Pu rs uantto a writ te n p le a ag reem en t u nd er Fe d.R .Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1) (C), Vall ejo ag reedto pl eadgu il ty to Co un t 3 , andth e g ov ern m en t ag reedto di sm is s Co un ts 1 an d 2 . Vall ejo an d t he go ve rn m en t ag reed“ th atth e ap pr op ria te di sp os it io n” was asen te nc e co ns is ti ng of 2 2 years’ im pr is on m en t an d a$1 m il li on fin e an d t ha t Val le

jo s ho ul d g etcred itforti m e se rv edsi nc e h is 20 08 arre st . The pl ea ag reem en t al so co nt ai ne d afor fei tu re p ro vi si on . 2At the ch an ge of p le a h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt re vi ewedth e Ru le

11 (c)( 1) (C) p le a ag reem en t an d u lt im at el y acce pt edit . The g ov ern m en t an d Vall ejo’s at to rn ey

ag reedth atth e co urt was bo un d b y th e en ti re p le a ag reem en t. Vall ejo t es ti fie d t ha t h e u nd ers to odth athe wou ldno t re cei ve a tr ia l an d wo ul d si m pl y be sen te nc edto 22 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t. The co urt t he n fu rth er re vi ewed po ss ib le sen te nc in g ra ng es , exp la in in g t ha t, “ un de r th e la w,” itha d the po wer t o se nt en ce Val le

jo t o aterm

of i m pr is on m en t o f 20 y ears to li fe. Val le jo t es ti fie d th athe un de rs to odth atsen te nc in g ra ng e. The c ou rt t he n e xp la in edth ata te rm of im pr is on m en t wo ul d b e fo ll owe d b y a te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e, whi ch th e go ve rn m en t s ta te d was fiv e y ears to li fe. Val le jo t es ti fie d t ha t h e u nd ers to odth at he co ul d b e im

pr is on edforvi ol at in g the term s o f supe rv is edrel eas e. The c ou rt no te d t ha t Val le

jo h adag reedto a $1 m il li on fin e, bu t al so no te d t ha t t he st atut ory m ax im um fin e was $2 m il li on . Fin al ly, th e co urt re vi ewedth e fo rfei tu re p ro vi si on in th e p le a ag reem en t an d e xp la in edth atVall ejo h adto pa y a $1 00 sp eci al as se ss m en t wh enhe was s en te nc ed . Vall ejo t es ti fie d tha t h e u nd ers to odth e fo rfei tu re p ro vi si on an d t ha t h e was requi redto pa y th e sp eci al ass es sm en t. The co urt t he n s ta te d t ha t i t wo ul d b e im po si ng a 22 -y ear t erm

of i m pr is on m en t an d acce pt edVall ejo’s g ui lt y pl ea. At s en te nc in g, t he co urt s en te nc edVall ejo t o 2 64 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, a 3$1 m il li on fin e, an d 5 y ears ’ supe rv is edrel eas e. Vall ejo, thr ou gh co un se l,

ob jecte d t o t he term

of s up erv is edrel eas e b ecau se supe rv is edrel eas e was no t m an da to ry , no r was itin cl ud edin th e p le a ag reem en t. The co urt re sp on de d t ha t th e p le a ag reem en t, wh ic h d idno t d is cu ss supe rv is edrel eas e, di d n otpre ve ntth e co urt fr om

im po si ng a te rm

of s up erv is edrel eas e. The p ro ba ti on off ic er n ot edth at th ere was no m in im

um requi redterm

of s up erv is edrel eas e. Vall ejo ar gu edth at th e p art ie s h adno t i nc lu de d aterm of s up erv is edrel eas e in th e rec omm en de d se nt en ce. Val le

jo d is ag reedwith t he co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e p le a ag reem en t, arg ui ng th atth e co urt was bo un d t o a ccep t t he reco m m en de d s en te nc e o f 22 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t an d a$1 m il li onfin e as th e en ti re s en te nc e. The c ou rt o ve rru le d Vall ejo’s o bjec ti on . II. W e rev ie w de no vo th e co ns tru ct io n o f pl ea ag reem en ts . Uni te d Sta tes v. Y ou ng , 13 1 F .3d14 37 , 14 38 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). W e rev ie w “ th e d is tri ctco urt’s factua l fi nd in gs reg ard in g t he sco pe of t he ag reem en t” forcle ar erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Al-Ar ia n , 51 4 F .3d11 84 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The go ve rn m en t an d ade fen da ntcan“ ag ree t ha t a s pe ci fic sen te nc e o r se nt en ci ng ran ge is th e ap pr op ria te di sp os it io n o f th e cas e.” Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1) (C). If t he co urt ac cep ts a Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C) p le a ag reem en t, the co urt i s 4bo un d b y

th e rec omm en da ti on . Id. The ac cep ta nc e o f a Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C) p le a

“ ag reem en t i s i de nt ic al to im po si ti on of p un is hm en t; if t he co urt d oe s n otco ns id er th e ag reem en t fa ir, i t s im pl y reject s t he en ti re p le a ag reem en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Dea n , 80 F.3d15 35 , 15 41 (11 th Cir .) (ad dr es si ng Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C)’s p recu rs or ), modif ie d , 87 F.3d12 12 (19 96 ). Lik e th e g ov ern m en t an d d efen da nt , th e co urt i s bo un d b y a pl ea ag reem en t tha t i t ac cep ts . Uni te d Sta tes v. Y es il , 99 1 F .2d15 27 , 15 32 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). A di st ric t co urt h as no po wer t o m od ify a pl ea ag reem en t th atitha s ap pr ov ed . Dea n , 80 F.3dat 1 54 1. If the co urt re jects a Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C) p le a ag reem en t, i t m us t “ gi ve th e d efen da ntanop po rtu ni ty to wit hd raw the pl ea.” Fe d.R .Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 5) (B). The fir stst ep in co ns tru in g apl ea ag reem en t i s t o d et erm in e th e sc op e o f th e ag reem en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. C op elan d , 38 1 F .3d11 01 , 11 05 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (rev ie win g app el la nt ’s arg um en t t ha t t he go ve rn m en t b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t). In so do in g, we ap pl y anob jecti ve st an da rdto de te rm in e “ whe th er th e [co urt’s] acti on s [we re] in co ns is te ntwith wh atth e d efen da ntreas on ab ly un de rs to odwhen he en te redhi s g ui lt y pl ea.” Al-Ar ia n , 51 4 F .3dat 1 19 1 (quo ta ti onom it te d) (rev ie win g app el la nt ’s arg um en t t ha t t he go ve rn m en t b reac he d th e p le a ag reem en t). Whe re a p le a ag reem en t i s u na m bi gu ou s, we wi ll no t co ns id er ex tri ns ic ev id en ce o f th e ag reem en t’s m ean in g. Co pe la nd , 38 1 F .3dat 511 05 -0 6. If a n a gr eem en t i s ambig uo us , ho wev er, “ we wil l co ns id er ex tri ns ic

ev id en ce o f th e p art ie s’ in te nt .” Id. at 1 10 6. Anam bi gu ou s ag reem en t “ m

us t b e readag ai ns t the go ve rn m en t.” Id. at 1 10 5- 06 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Whe n aco urt acce pt s a p le a ag reem en t, b utth ende ni es th e d efen dantth e b en efi t o f th at ag reem en t, the de fen da ntis en ti tl edto “ sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce o f th e p le a ag reem en t or. . . th e o pp ortu ni ty to wi th dr aw th e g ui lt y pl ea.” Y es il , 99 1 F .2dat 1 53 2- 33 . Here, the pl ea ag reem en t was un am bi gu ou s. Val le

jo an d t he go ve rn m en t ex pl ic it ly agree d tha t, und er Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C), “ th e ap pr op ria te di sp os it io n” was a se nt en ce co ns is ti ng of a22 -y ear t erm of i m pr is on m en t an d a$1 m il li on fin e. The pl ea ag reem en t d oe s n otin cl ud e a t erm of s up erv is edrel eas e in it s d is po si ti on , no r do es itin di cat e th atth e co urt re ta in s t he po wer t o i m po se a te rm

of s up erv is ed rel eas e th atth e co urt d eem s ap pr op ria te . The co urt was no t al lo wedto m od ify the pl ea ag reem en t b y

ad di ng a te rm

of s up erv is edrel eas e to th e ag reed -upo n di sp os it io n. Se e Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1) (C); Dea n , 80 F.3dat 1 54 1. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y

erre d i n d et erm in in g t ha t, und er the pl ea ag reem en t, i t co ul d i m po se a te rm

of s up erv is edrel eas e. Se e Al-Ar ia n , 51 4 F .3dat 1 19 1. Mo reo ve r, ev enif t he pl ea ag reem en t was am bi gu ou s, the co urt’s im po si ti on of s up erv is edrel eas e wou ldbe erro ne ou s. Whenth e co urt d is cu ss ed th e se nt en ci ng pro cedur es ord in ari ly use d i n c riminal cas es , itha d a lre ady 6acce pt edVall ejo’s p le a ag reem en t an d e xp la in edto Vall ejo t ha t h e wou ldno t

rece iv e a tria l an d wo ul d i ns te adsi m pl y be sen te nc edto 22 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t. Vall ejo wo ul d n otha ve reas on ab ly und ers to odth e co urt’s s ub se qu en t d is cu ss io n of th e st atut ory

sen te nc in g ra ng es to m ean th atth e Co urt was go in g t o o ve rri de th e te rm s o f th e p le a ag reem en t i t h adalr eady acce pt edan d i m

po se a te rm

of supe rv is edrel eas e. Se e Al-Ar ia n , 51 4 F .3dat 1 19 1. Fi na ll y , if the pl ea ag reem en t was am bi gu ou s, i t wo ul d b e rea d a ga in stth e g ov ern m en t. Se e Co pe la nd , 38 1 F .3d at11 05 -0 6. Re ad in g t he ag reem en t ag ai ns t t he go ve rn m en t, Val le jo an d the go ve rn m en t ag reedto a se nt en ce o f 22 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t an d a$1 mil li on fin e, no th in g e ls e. Bas edon th e ab ov e, th e d is tri ctco urt b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t, an d we va cat e an d re m an d. Val le jo s eek s s pe ci fic pe rfo rm an ce o f th e p le a ag reem en t, an d we, th eref

or e, or de r th e d is tri ctco urt t o re se nt en ce h im in co m pl ia nc e wit h t he pl ea ag reem en t—th atis , witho uta te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e. Se e Y es il , 99 1 F .2d at15 32 -3 3. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we v acat e an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g wi th ou t supe rv is edrel eas e. VACATED AND REMANDED.

7