Opinion ID: 68376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of terms of 2003 plea agreement

Text: Bernal-Madrigal also contends that the Government violated the written terms of the 2003 plea agreement by failing to file an S-visa application on his behalf with federal immigration authorities and because it did not resolve all pending drug charges against him in Mexico. A determination of whether the government violated a plea agreement is reviewed de novo. United States v. Horsfall, 552 F.3d 1275, 1281 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2034 (2009). “Whether the government violated the agreement is judged according to the defendant’s reasonable understanding at the time he entered the plea.” Id. (quotations omitted). Contrary to Bernal-Madrigal’s argument, the 2003 plea agreement did not state that the Government would resolve any charges against Bernal-Madrigal in 2 Bernal-Madrigal’s argument that he was denied an opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Order is waived because he did not raise it until his reply brief. See United States v. Britt, 437 F.3d 1103, 1104 (11th Cir. 2006). 8 Mexico, but only that, upon his conviction there, it would request that any sentence imposed be served concurrently with his sentence here. The language is not an agreement to “resolve all charges” in Mexico. Thus, Bernal-Madrigal cannot show the Government violated the plea agreement in this respect. Additionally, the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel the Government regarding the S-visa. The Government outlined its usual policy and stated the DEA typically does not begin the process until an inmate is released, at which time it files a Request for Deferred Action for Deportation. As BernalMadrigal was not set for release until April 17, 2009, the issue was not yet ripe when considered by the district court.3