Opinion ID: 590644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gonzalez: Breach of Plea Agreement

Text: 4 Under the plea agreement Gonzalez promised full cooperation with the government and complete and truthful testimony at court proceedings. But at Orduna's trial Gonzalez gave false testimony and admitted to providing false information to the government during the preparation of the case against Orduna. Gonzalez does not dispute that he gave false information to the government before Orduna's trial, and false testimony under oath at that trial (Br. 2-3). However, he asserts that despite some false statements, his testimony was substantially truthful. As such, he argues that he partially complied with the plea agreement, and that although he should not receive full credit, he should receive at least some credit for his partial performance of the plea agreement. However, his half-truths do not compel the government to accord half-credit. The plea agreement required him to provide complete and truthful testimony. Just four years ago, citing four supporting authorities, we held that a defendant's failure to fulfill the terms of a pre-trial agreement relieves the government of its reciprocal obligations. United States v. Ataya, 864 F.2d 1324, 1338 (7th Cir.1988). When a defendant offers false testimony under oath, even when intermingled with truthful testimony, he has not fulfilled the terms of this agreement. See United States v. Britt, 917 F.2d 353 (8th Cir.1990), certiorari denied, 111 S.Ct. 971. 5 Once the district court set aside the plea agreement, it was within the prosecutor's discretion whether to make a motion for downward departure based on substantial assistance. The Supreme Court recently held that the government can refuse to file a motion seeking reduction below statutory minimum sentences in return for substantial assistance unless the refusal is based on an unconstitutional motive. Wade v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1840. Gonzalez has never alleged that the government's motion to set aside the plea agreement was based on an unconstitutional motive. Therefore the judgment of conviction of Gonzalez is affirmed.