Opinion ID: 201742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Original Claim: Breach of Plea Agreement

Text: Guzman's original claim was that the government had breached its plea agreement with him by referring in its amended motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. §5K1.1 to a Guidelines sentencing range beyond what the plea agreement had contemplated. He sought specific performance of the plea agreement and resentencing with a recommendation by the government for a sentence based on a base offense level of 32. It is unnecessary to decide whether the government breached the plea agreement by referring in its amended § 5K1.1 motion to a guideline imprisonment range of 262 to 327 months, which corresponded with the offense level calculated under § 4B1.1, the -2- career offender Guidelines provision, rather than with the offense level calculated under § 2D1.1, based on drug quantity (which would yield an imprisonment range of 151 - 188 months). Guzman concedes that the issue was not raised below and, therefore, that plain error review applies. Even if there had been a breach, Guzman cannot satisfy the third prong of plain error review, which requires a showing that the error affects substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). The government neither agreed to request nor requested a departure in accord with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The government requested that the sentencing court depart below the applicable Guidelines sentencing range to impose a sentence of 120 months, the statutory mandatory minimum. The sentencing court granted that request. Therefore, Guzman has not shown that the alleged breach affected his sentence.