Opinion ID: 52840
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Goldfaden

Text: Puckett does not explain how he has satisfied Calverley, arguing instead that under United States v. Goldfaden the government's breach of a plea agreement is reversible without further analysis. Goldfaden, however, has been superseded by Calverley. In Goldfaden, the defendant argued for the first time on appeal that the government had breached the plea agreement. 959 F.2d at 1327. The court ostensibly reviewed this claim for plain error but did not explain the basis for its holding. After finding that the government had breached the plea agreement, the court concluded in the space of a sentence that this violation is plain error, and remanded for resentencing. Id. [4] This cursory plain error review does not meet the Calverley or Olano requirements. After finding error, Goldfaden did not explain why the government's error was plain or obvious. [5] Two years after Goldfaden, Calverley disavowed earlier circuit decisions that fail to articulate the requirement that the unobjected to error must be obvious. 37 F.3d at 163-64 & n. 27. Further, Goldfaden did not address the third prong of the Calverley test. Though the court correctly observed that a plea agreement implicates a defendant's constitutional rights, 959 F.2d at 1328, this is insufficient where a defendant fails to preserve error on appeal. Olano, 507 U.S. at 731, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (noting that constitutional rights are subject to forfeiture if not timely asserted). Under Calverley, forfeited plain error is redressable only when it  seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. 37 F.3d at 164 (emphasis added). Goldfaden did not reach this question, nor did the court explain whether the defendant was required to, or actually did, show prejudice. See Goldfaden, 959 F.2d at 1327-28. Because Goldfaden did not adequately consider the appellate court's limited authority to review forfeited error, it cannot be applied post- Calverley. The controlling standard for forfeited error in criminal cases was articulated clearly in Calverley, and we are bound by that en banc decision.