FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 10 -1 11 34 & 1 0- 11 13 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cr-0 00 42 -WS-C-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us QUINCY MARQUIS P RIM , Defen da nt- App el lant .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, BLACK an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Inth is co ns ol id at edap pe al , Qui nc y Pri m ap pe al s h is 18 8- m on thsen te nc e im po se d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty to dru g c on sp ira cy , 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 , andaft er the di st ric t co urt re du cedhi s s en te nc e p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . No 1 rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . Befo re s en te nc in g o n the dru g c on sp ira cy ch arg e, Pri m

was arres te d fo r po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m ari juan a. At s en te nc in g, the go ve rn m en t

2 co nt en de d t ha t Pr im ’s comm is si on of t hi s o ffen se vi ol at edth e p le a ag reem en t an d rel ie ve d i t o f it s o bl ig at io n t o fi le a m ot io n fo r a d own wardde pa rtu re, U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1. Onap pe al , Prim

arg ue s tha t the go ve rn m en t b reac he d the pl ea ag reem en t whe n i t fa il edto m ov e fo r a d own wardde partu re b ecau se he ha d p ro vi de d the requi redsubs tant ia l as si st an ce. Becaus e Pri m fai le d t o ra is e th is arg um en t i n t he 3 Prim filed a motion to vacate his sente nce, 28 U .S.C. § 2255, so that he c ould file an out- 1 of-time appe al. The district c ourt grante d the motion, re-e ntere d judgme nt so Prim could file an otherwise untimely

appea l, resente nced Prim to 235 months’ imprisonment, and then reduc ed this sentence to 188 months pursuant to Prim’s section 3582(c )(2) motion and Amendment 706 to the SentencingGuidelines. L aw e nforc ement off

icer s discovere d 26 marijuana joints st ored in a

sock and c ontained 2 in a light f

ix ture ne x t to Prim ’s bunk at the c ounty J ail. Prim pleaded g

uilty to this offense, a

nd the district court e ventually sentenc ed him to two months’ imprisonm ent. We conclude that the plea a gree ment’s sentenc e appe al waive r does not pre clude our 3 consideration of this argument. See United States v. Copeland, 381 F .3d 1101, 1104-05 (11th Cir. 2004) (re

jectingg overnme nt’s contention that a se ntence appea l waiver barr ed re view of 2di st ric t co urt, we re vi ew th e is su e fo r pl ai n e rro r. Puc ke ttv. Un it edSta te s, 1 29

S.Ct . 14 23 , 14 28 -3 3 (2 00 9) . Und er thi s s tand ard , Prim m us t s ho w (1) erro r, (2 ) th atis cle ar o r ob vi ou s, an d (3 ) th ataffec ts hi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Id . at 1 42 9. Whe n ade fen da ntall eg es th atth e g ov ern m en t v io la te d h is pl ea ag reem en t, we are “ on ly resp on si bl e fo r en su rin g t he term s o f th e p le a ag reem en t ar e fo ll owe d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 1 32 F.3d62 8, 6 30 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Over al l,

“ whe n apl ea re st s i n a ny sig ni fic an t d eg ree o n apro m is e o r ag reem en t o f th e pr os ecu to r, so th atitcanbe sai d t o b e p artof t he in du cem en t o r co ns id erat io n, su chpro m is e m

us t b e fu lfi ll ed .” San to be ll o v . New York , 92 S.Ct . 49 5, 4 99 (1 97 1) . So, i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r th e g ov ern m en t b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t, we fi rs t m

us t d et erm in e th e sc op e o f th e g ov ern m en t’s p ro m is es . Rau le rs on v. Uni te d S tate s, 9 01 F.2d10 09 , 10 11 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). W he th er the go ve rn m en t vi ol at edth e p le a ag reem en t “ is jud ge d a cco rd in g t o t he de fen da nt ’s reas on ab le un de rs tand in g [wh en ] he en te redhi s p le a.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tay lo r, 77 F.3d36 8, 37 0 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 6) (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Whe re the ag reem en t i s ambig uo us , it m us t b e rea d a ga in stth e g ov ern m en t. Co pe land , 38 1 F .3dat 1 10 5- 06 . Inpe rti ne ntpa rt, Pr im ’s pl ea ag reem en t ex pl ai ne d t ha t, i n e xc ha ng e fo r hi s co op erat io n a ndsubs tant ia l as si st an ce, the go ve rn m en t wo ul d m ov e fo r a defe ndant’s argument that the g overnme nt brea ched the plea a gree ment). 3do wnwar d d ep artur e. The s ect io n o f th e ag reem en t d is cu ss in g s pe ci fic al ly the

go ve rn m en t’s o bl ig at io n t o fi le a subs tant ia l as si st an ce m ot io n s ta te d tha t the go ve rn m en t wo ul d n otfil e th e m ot io n o nl y if Pr im pro vi de d u nt ru th fu l in fo rm at io n o r fai le d t o d is cl os e m at eri al fact s. Th is sec ti on , as Pr im po in ts ou t, di d n otst at e th atth e co m mis si on of ane w off

en se wou ldco ns ti tu te a reas onfor no t fi li ng th e m ot io n. Bu t an ot he r se ct io n o f th e ag reem en t ex pl ai ne d t ha t co m m it ti ng a ne w off

en se wou ldco ns ti tu te a br eachof the ag reem en t; an d the ag reem en t m or e g en eral ly exp la in edth atan y vi ol at io n o f th e ag reem en t wo ul d free th e g ov ern m en t o f “ an y ob li ga ti on s i m

po se d” by the ag reem en t. On the se fact s, we ca nn otsay tha t Pr im ha s d em on st rat edth atth e d is tri ct co urt p la in ly erredby con cl ud in g t ha t the go ve rn m en t co m pl ie d wi th th e p le a ag reem en t. Pri m

co nc ed es th athi s co m

m is si on of t he ne w off

en se co ns ti tu te d a br each of t he ag reem en t. Thu s, b as edon Pri m ’s con ces si on of b reac h a ndth e ge ne ral lan gu ag e o f th e p le a ag reem en t tha t an y vi ol at io n b y

Pri m rel ie ve d the go ve rn m en t o f it s o bl ig at io ns , we can no t s ay th atan y erro r by the go ve rn m en t i n de cl in in g t o m ov e fo r a d own wardde pa rtu re i s cl ear o r ob vi ou s. See Pu ck et t, 1 29 S.Ct . at 1 43 3 (e xp la in in g t ha t the sec on d p ro ng of p la inerro r rev ie w “ wil l o fte n ha ve so m e ‘bit e’ in p le a-ag reem en t ca se s” be cau se “ [n ]ot al l b reac he s wi ll be cle ar an d o bv io us ”). 4W e rejectPri m ’s con te nt io n t ha t h is bre ach was n ota vi ol at io n o f th e

ag reem en t b ecau se itwas i m m at eri al . See Co pe land , 38 1 F .3dat 1 10 5 (i n in te rp ret in g apl ea ag reem en t, we ap pl y anob jecti ve st an da rdan d wi ll no t ac cep t a

“ hyper- te ch ni cal ” o r “ rig id ly lit eral ” in te rp ret at io n o f th e ag reem en t). Ev en as su m in g t ha t an imm at eri al bre ach wou ldst il l o bl ig at e th e g ov ern m en t t o fi le a subs tant ia l as si st an ce m ot io n, Pr im ha s n otsh own th atitwas c le ar o r ob vi ou s tha t hi s b reac h was imm at eri al , gi ve n t ha t h e co m m it te d a no th er dru g o ffen se an d, as th e g ov ern m en t as se rts , jeop ard iz edth e v al ue of any ass is tanc e h e d idor c ou ld of fer. Pri m ne xtarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredwhen itto okaway hi s acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity reduc ti on . He con te nd s tha t co m m it ti ng an ot he r of fen se was o nl y

on e o f m an y

fact or s the co urt co ul d c on si de r inde ci di ng whet he r he was e li gi bl e fo r th e reduc ti on , bu t the co urt treat edth e co m m is si on of a no th er of fen se as am an da to ry

reas on to de ny the reduc ti on . Becau se Pri m di d n ot ch al le ng e th e acc ep tanc e o f res po ns ib il ity de te rm in at io n i n t he di st ric t co urt, we rev ie w th e p res en t cl ai m

forpl ai n e rro r. See Un it edSta te s v . Ben ne tt , 47 2 F .3d 82 5, 8 31 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt i s i n aun ique po si ti onto 4 We assume that the g overnme nt rescinde d the plea a gree ment, including the sentenc e 4 appea l waiver , when it stated at sentencingthat it was relieve d of its obligations under the plea agree ment beca

use of Prim’s bre ach; a

nd we a ddress this subst antive sente ncingargument. 5ev al ua te a de fen da nt ’s acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , th e se nt en ci ng jud ge ’s

de te rm in at io n i s en ti tl edto gre atde fere nc e o n re vi ew an d s ho ul d n otbe di sturbe d un le ss itis witho utfou nd at io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Vil larin o, 9 30 F.2d15 27 , 15 30 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) (ci ta ti onom it te d) . W e se e n o p la in erro r. At s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt i nd ic at edth atth e pr ob at io n o ffi cer r em ov edth e reduc ti on be cau se of the off en se Pri m co m m it te d whi le he was i nc arce rat ed . The v ol un tary withd rawal fro m

cri m in al co nduc t i s a pe rm is si bl e fac to r to co ns id er i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r to gra ntanacce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity

reduc ti on . See U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 , comm en t. (n . 1(b )); see als o Uni te d S tate s v . Pace, 1 7 F .3d34 1, 3 43 -4 4 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 4) (in de te rm in in g whe th er an acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity reduc ti on is ap pr op ria te , th e co urt m ay co ns id er p os t-o ffen se cri m in al co nduc t, ev enif i t i s u nr el at edto th e o ffen se of co nv ic ti on ). W e d eferto th e se nt en ci ng jud ge ’s det erm in at io n o n re vi ew an d can no t s ay

th atth e co urt’s co nc lu si on is witho utfou nd at io n. Th atth e co urt d id no t m en ti on ex pl ic it ly oth er co ns id erat io ns an d c ho se to foc us on Pri m ’s co m m is si on of ane w off

en se is no pl ai n e rro r. Abo uthi s s ect io n 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n, Pr im co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erre d i n c on cl ud in g t ha t i t l ack eddi sc ret io n u nd er Un it edSta te s v . Boo ke r, 12 5 S.Ct . 73 8 (2 00 5) , andKim br ou gh v. Un it edSta te s, 1 28 S.Ct . 55 8 (2 00 7) , to

6se nt en ce h im be lo w th e am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e aft er ap pl ic at io n o f Am en dm en t 70 6. Bu t o urpre ced en t, as well as Un it edSta te s Supr em e Co urt p rece de nt , fo recl os es Pri m ’s arg um en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Mel vi n, 5 56 F.3d11 90 , 11 92 -9 3 (1 1t h C ir.) , cert . den ie d, 1 29 S.Ct . 23 82 (20 09 ) (co nc lu di ng th atBo ok er an d Kim br ou gh ap pl y

to ori gi na l s en te nc in g p ro ceed in gs an d d o “ no t ad dr es s m ot io ns to reduc e se nt en ce u nd er [s ect io n] 35 82 (c)( 2) ”); Dil lo n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 1 30 S.Ct . 26 83 , 26 92 (20 10 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atBo ok er d oe s n otap pl y to sec ti on 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in gs , bec au se su chpro ceed in gs “ do no t i m pl ic at e th e in te res ts id en ti fie d i n Bo ok er”) . AFFIRMED.

7