Opinion ID: 78202
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government's Written Response to Horsfall's PSI Objections

Text: Horsfall first argues that the government breached the plea agreement by arguing for an upward departure in its written response to Horsfall's objections to the PSI. In its written response, the government stated that it intend[ed] to seek an upward departure based on the length of the videos and that an upward departure [wa]s necessary in order to prevent Horsfall from committing further crimes. These assertions would appear to conflict with the government's obligation in the plea agreement not to recommend an upward departure. However, the plea agreement in this case prohibited the government from recommending an upward departure to the court. As Horsfall acknowledged when he sought to supplement the record on appeal, the government's response was never filed with the district court. Furthermore, the government withdrew the response before sentencing, and there is nothing in the sentencing transcript to indicate that the court ever received or considered the government's response. Thus, while the government may have improperly recommended an upward departure in its response, this recommendation was not presented to the court. Nonetheless, Horsfall contends that the government's recommendation was indirectly presented to the court because it was incorporated in the probation officer's sentencing recommendation. However, a review of the record suggests that the probation officer did not incorporate the government's response. First, the probation officer did not reference the government's response in the sentencing recommendation. Second, a comparison between the government's response and the sentencing recommendation does not support Horsfall's assertion, as the upward-departure analysis in the probation officer's sentencing recommendation is substantially different and more detailed than the government's response. Finally, the government's response merely adopted the probation officer's initial upward-departure analysis from the original PSI. Thus, to the extent that the probation officer incorporated any of the government's response, it was essentially incorporating its own initial upward-departure recommendation. Accordingly, there is no indication that the government's response was presented to the court and, therefore, there was no violation of the plea agreement in this regard.