FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB 14, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 0- 10 27 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 4 :0 9- cr-0 00 22 -WT M-GRS -2

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

vers us

DEREK MARCELL JETER,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 14 , 20 11 )

Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:

Derek Mar cel l Jet er app eal s hi s 46 -m on th ab ov e-g ui de li ne se nt en ce im po se d

fo ll owi ng hi s gu il ty pl ea to on e co un t of ba nk frau d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 44

.On ap pe al
, Je te r arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t br each ed t h e pl ea ag reem en t by

reco m m en di ng an ab ov e-g ui de li ne se nt en ce, whi ch req u i r e s us to rem an d fo r

re-s en te nc in g. Bec au se he kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly en te red hi s gu il ty pl ea, Je te r

req ue st s th at we or de r re-s en te n c i n g b e f o r e a di ffer en t di st ric t co ur t jud ge

. Afte r

care fu l re vi ew, we va cat e an d re m an d.

W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er th e g o v e r nm en t br each ed a pl ea ag reem en t.

Uni te d St at es v. Mah iq ue , 15 0 F.3 d 13 30
, 13 32 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ). W he n a pl ea res ts

in an y si gn ifi can t po rti on on th e go ve rn m en t’s pr om is e or ag reem en t, s o th at it

be co m es pa rt of th e i n d u c e ment or co ns id erat io n, su ch pr om is e m us t be fu lfi ll ed

.

San to be ll o v . New York , 40 4 U.S. 2 57 , 26 2 (1 97 1)

.

W e h av e h el d t ha t wh et he r th e di st ric t cou rt con si de red or was in flu en ced by

th e go ve rn m en t’s po si ti on on th e se nt en c i n g i s s u e i s no t rel ev an t. Uni te d St at es v.

Jo hn so n, 1 32 F.3d 62 8, 6 30 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). W he n ana lyzin g an al le ge d v io la ti on

of a pl ea agre em en t, we do “ no t add res s th e di st ric t cou rt’s exe rci se of di sc ret io n in

im po si ng a se nt en ce. Rat h e r , we fo cu s on th e go ve rn m en t’s vi ol at io n of it s pl ea

ag reem en t.” Id . ( qu ot at io n a nd em ph as is om it te d) . We h av e he ld th at “ [a]dv oc acy

of a po si ti on req ui rin g a gr eat er se nt en ce is fla tl y in co ns is te nt wit h reco m m en da ti on

of a le ss er se nt en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Tay lo r, 77 F.3 d 36 8, 37 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ). In

Tay lo r , t h e g o v ern m en t co nc ed ed th at it s su pp or t of th e PSI’s po si ti on on rel at ed

2co nd uc t was in co m pa ti bl e wit h th e pl ea ag reem en t’s te rm s, bu t it arg ue d th at it cu red

th e br each by reco m

m en di ng th e ap pr op ria te se nt en ce at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. Id

.

at 37 1. W e di sa gr eed an d he ld th at th e go ve rn m en t’s reco mm en da ti on , “ whi ch

m erel y pa id ‘lip se rv ic e’ to th e a g r e e m en t, [was ] in su ffi ci en t to rect ify th e br each

co m m it te d whe n th e go ve rn m en t ad vo cat ed a po si ti on req ui rin g a lo n g e r se nt en ce

th an it ha d a gr eed to reco m m en d.” Id.

W he n th e go ve rn m en t’s br each of an ag reem en t ha s be en es ta bl is he d, we m ay

ei th er or de r sp eci fic pe rfo rm an ce of th e ag reem en t by m ean s of re-s en te nc in g be fo re

a di ffer en t jud g e o r a l l ow a wit hd rawal of th e pl ea. Jo hn so n, 13 2 F.3 d at 63 1. W e

ha ve no t fav or ed wit hd rawal of th e gu il ty pl ea whe re, as he re, no qu es ti on ex is ts th at

th e p le a was kn owi ng ly and vo lu nt ari ly ent ered . Id.

In th e pl ea ag reem en t an d at Je te r’s Ru le 11 he ar i n g, th e go ve rn m en t ag reed

t h a t it wou ld reco m

m en d a wit hi n- gu id el in e se nt en ce. Bu t in a se nt en ci n g

m em or an du m an d at se nt en ci ng , th e go ve rn m en t ad vo cat ed a 51 -m o nt h

ab ov e-g ui de li ne se nt en ce. By reco m m en di ng an a b o v e

- gu id el in e se nt en ce, th e

go ve rn m en t cl earl y vi ol at ed th e p l ea ag reem en t. Fu rth er, as it co nc ed es , th e

go ve rn m en t’s ap ol og y an d su bs eq ue nt wit hi n- gu id el in e reco m m en da ti on fai le d to

cu re th e br each

. See Tay lo r, 77 F.3 d at 37 1. Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cu re

th e g o v e r n men t ’s br each whe n it st at ed th at it di d no t rel y up on th e go ve rn m en t’s

3in it ia l reco m m en da ti on in im

po si ng Je te r’s se nt en ce. See San to be ll o, 40 4 U.S. at 26 2

(rem an di ng cas e ev en th ou gh th e Co ur t ha d “ n o r e a s o n to do ub t” th e se nt en ci ng
ju dg e’s st at em en t th at “ th e pr os ecu to r’s reco m m en da ti on di d no t in flu en ce hi m”)

.

Fi na ll y , as in Jo hn so n, 13 2 F.3 d at 63 1, Je te r do es no t se ek to wit hd raw hi s kn owi ng

an d vo lu nt ary gu il ty pl ea. The refo re, as th e go ve rn m en t ag rees , o u r p r eced en t

co m pe ls us to va cat e Je te r’s se nt en ce an d or de r th at he be res en te nc ed by a di ffer en t

di st ric t co ur t ju dg e.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

4