Opinion ID: 2734266
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Compel Specific Performance

Text: In August 2013, Ware filed his pro se “Motion to Compel . . . Specific Performance of Plea Agreement,” under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which is at issue on appeal. ROA at 592. He asserted his PSI incorrectly had designated him as a career offender based on three prior convictions that were not separated by intervening arrests. Moreover, Ware argued the PSI incorrectly scored those convictions in determining his criminal history category. As a result, his noncareer-offender Guidelines range should have been 121-151 months of imprisonment, based on an offense level of 30, 6 criminal-history points, and a 7 Case: 14-10373 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 8 of 11 criminal history category of III. He argued, the government had breached his plea agreement by recommending that he be sentenced within his career-offender Guidelines range, which was an upward departure from his correct Guidelines range. Ware further contended the government’s failure to object to the PSI barred it from seeking to rely on other convictions to support his career-offender status. Finally, Ware argued the district judge had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the government to act under § 1361, since Ware had a clear right to relief, the government had a duty to fulfill its obligations under his plea agreement, and Ware had no other adequate remedy because of his appeal waiver. He asked the judge to order specific performance of his plea agreement or allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. The district judge denied Ware’s motion without requiring a response from the government. The judge concluded both this Court and the district judge previously had addressed the issues raised in Ware’s motion. The judge again determined Ware had failed to allege a constitutionally impermissible consideration had motivated the government not to file a substantial-assistance motion. The judge further concluded Ware’s request for mandamus relief under § 1361 did not cure this deficiency. The judge did not address Ware’s career- offender claim. 8 Case: 14-10373 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 9 of 11 Ware argues pro se on appeal the district judge abused his discretion by denying Ware’s motion to compel specific performance. Based on the government’s admissions during his § 2255 proceeding, Ware argues his applicable Guidelines range was 168-210 months of imprisonment, rather than the higher range relied on by the judge during his sentencing. Under the plain language of his plea agreement, he asserts he has a clear right to have the government recommend a sentence within the lower range, and the government has a clear duty to act to do so. Ware argues, he has no other adequate remedy because of his appeal waiver, which did not relieve the government of its obligation to recommend a sentence within his applicable Guidelines range.