Opinion ID: 2816813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-plea Sentencing Agreement

Text: Where, as here, the defendant failed to object to the alleged breach before the district court, we review whether the government has breached a plea agreement for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). Sanders characterizes the agreement as the government 3 Case: 14-12110 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 4 of 7 agreeing not to present any evidence as to role and as to the use of a minor. The government characterizes the agreement as the government agreeing with Sanders that the enhancements should not apply, but not limiting the government over presenting evidence or advocating for a sentence. It is not clear from the record what the verbal post-plea agreement actually entailed, and the solemnization of a plea agreement does not preclude the government from disclosing pertinent information to the sentencing court. See United States v. Boatner, 966 F.2d 1575, 1578 (11th Cir. 1992). Under plain error review, “the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute.” See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 134, 129 S. Ct. at 1428. Thus, Sanders has not shown that the government breached its post-plea agreement under a plain error standard of review.