Court Opinion

ID: 9880832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 20:00:36.907516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:52.944733
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12855     Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                     In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12855
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                        Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       WALTER LUCAS,
       a.k.a. Walter Steven Lucas,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00168-TFM-N-1
USCA11 Case: 22-12855        Document: 35-1         Date Filed: 09/28/2023        Page: 2 of 9

       2                         Opinion of the Court                      22-12855

                               ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Walter Lucas appeals his above-guidelines 60-month sen-
       tence after pleading guilty to possessing a ﬁrearm while under a
       protection order: a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). On appeal,
       Lucas contends that the government breached the plea agreement
       by (1) failing to recommend a sentence at the low end of the advi-
       sory guidelines range, and (2) by presenting witness testimony that
       caused the district court to vary upwards. No reversible error has
       been shown; we aﬃrm.
              In February 2022, Lucas pleaded guilty pursuant to a written
       plea agreement. 1 In exchange for Lucas’s guilty plea, the govern-
       ment agreed -- in pertinent part -- to recommend that Lucas “be
       sentenced at the low end of the advisory guideline range as deter-
       mined by the Court.” The plea agreement also provided that the
       government would “provide all relevant sentencing information to
       the Probation Oﬃce for purposes of the pre-sentence investiga-
       tion.” The agreement allowed both parties “to allocute fully at the
       time of sentencing.”

       1 We note that the plea agreement contained a waiver of Lucas’s right to ap-

       peal his sentence but reserved expressly Lucas’s right to appeal a sentence im-
       posed above the advisory guidelines range. Lucas’s appeal is thus properly
       before us.
USCA11 Case: 22-12855     Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023    Page: 3 of 9

       22-12855               Opinion of the Court                        3

              Following Lucas’s guilty plea, a probation oﬃcer prepared a
       Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (“PSI”). The probation oﬃcer
       determined that Lucas was subject to a four-level enhancement un-
       der U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because he had possessed a ﬁrearm in
       connection with another felony oﬀense: aggravated stalking. The
       probation oﬃcer calculated the advisory guidelines range as 37 to
       46 months’ imprisonment.
              Lucas ﬁled objections to the PSI. Among other things, Lucas
       denied that he had committed aggravated stalking and, thus, ob-
       jected to the four-level enhancement under section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
               On 12 August 2022 -- in accordance with the district court’s
       local rules -- the government ﬁled a notice advising the district
       court that the sentencing hearing would likely exceed thirty
       minutes. The government said it intended to call various witnesses
       to testify. To the extent Lucas maintained his objection to the PSI’s
       guidelines calculation, the government said it would call between
       one and three witnesses to testify about facts supporting the section
       2K2.1 enhancement. The government also said it intended to call
       one witness to testify about “problematic and concerning behav-
       ior” Lucas had engaged in after entering his guilty plea: conduct
       the government said was pertinent to the sentencing factors set out
       in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Despite Lucas’s alleged post-plea conduct,
       the government said that “[b]ecause the defendant does not appear
       to have violated the terms of his Plea Agreement, the United States
       will honor its obligation to recommend a sentence at the low-end
       of the Guidelines.”
USCA11 Case: 22-12855     Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023    Page: 4 of 9

       4                     Opinion of the Court                22-12855

              At the sentencing hearing, the government called four wit-
       nesses. Three of those witnesses -- Lucas’s ex-wife (K.L.), K.L.’s
       neighbor ( Jasmine Malone), and Oﬃcer Joshua Coleman -- testiﬁed
       about the events leading up to Lucas’s arrest. Brieﬂy stated, K.L.
       testiﬁed that she had obtained a protection-from-abuse order
       against Lucas, but that Lucas had continued to follow, harass, and
       intimidate her.
              Malone testiﬁed that, on 6 September 2021, Lucas entered
       her backyard and appeared to be watching K.L.’s home over the
       fence. When Malone spoke to Lucas, Lucas talked about “getting
       back at her” and about “taking her to a warehouse and just tasing
       the hell out of her”: comments Malone understood as referring to
       K.L. Based on Lucas’s behavior and comments, Malone called 911.
       Malone testiﬁed further that Lucas entered her backyard several
       more times throughout the night and into the following morning.
       At one point, Malone could see on her security camera that Lucas
       had a gun in his waistband.
               K.L. testiﬁed that, on 6 September 2021, Lucas twice visited
       her home in violation of the protection-from-abuse order. The po-
       lice were called both times: once by the neighbor and once by K.L.
       Early in the morning of 7 September, Lucas knocked on K.L.’s bed-
       room window while K.L. was sleeping. K.L. again called 911; Lucas
       left the property.
              Following K.L.’s 911 call, Oﬃcer Coleman was dispatched to
       K.L.’s home. While Oﬃcer Coleman spoke with K.L., Lucas called
       K.L.’s cell phone about ﬁfteen times. When K.L. answered the
USCA11 Case: 22-12855     Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023    Page: 5 of 9

       22-12855               Opinion of the Court                        5

       phone at Oﬃcer Coleman’s direction, Oﬃcer Coleman heard Lu-
       cas yelling, saying that he was coming over, and heard a single gun-
       shot. Oﬃcer Coleman called for backup. Oﬃcers stopped Lucas’s
       car about two houses away from K.L.’s home and took Lucas into
       custody. Then, during a search of Lucas’s car, oﬃcers found two
       guns, ammunition, a ﬂashlight, and a pair of binoculars.
              The government also called Lucas’s cellmate of two months,
       Monroe Mahoney. Mahoney testiﬁed that Lucas talked frequently
       about making K.L. “pay” for what she did to him, about his stalking
       of K.L., and about his violent fantasies about harming K.L. At one
       point, Mahoney told Lucas falsely that he could arrange to have
       K.L. killed. Mahoney said Lucas expressed interest and began plan-
       ning the details of the arranged killing: plans that included shoot-
       ing K.L.’s son in front of her and then allowing Lucas to dismem-
       ber K.L.’s body.
              At the end of the sentencing hearing, the district court over-
       ruled Lucas’s objection to the four-level enhancement and adopted
       the PSI. Without asking the government for a recommended sen-
       tence, the district court sentenced Lucas to 60 months’ imprison-
       ment. The district court credited the testimony of the govern-
       ment’s four witnesses and found Lucas’s testimony not credible.
       Based on the hearing testimony, the district court was convinced
       that Lucas intended to harm K.L.; and the court was concerned for
       K.L.’s safety. The district court explained that the circumstances
       involved in this case were more serious than the typical section
       922(g)(8) case. The district court concluded that an upward
USCA11 Case: 22-12855      Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023     Page: 6 of 9

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12855

       variance was necessary to reﬂect the seriousness of the oﬀense, to
       provide adequate deterrence, and to protect K.L. from future
       harm.
              Lucas objected, arguing that the government had failed to
       recommend a sentence at the low-end of the advisory guidelines
       range and had, thus, breached the plea agreement. The district
       court overruled the objection, stating that “[t]he government made
       its recommendation” and that the court “knew what the govern-
       ment’s recommendation was prior” to announcing the sentence.
       The district court also said that the government had “complied
       with not only the letter but the spirit of the plea agreement.”
              Whether the government breached a plea agreement is a
       question of law that we review de novo. See United States v. Copeland,
       381 F.3d 1101, 1104 (11th Cir. 2004).
              We construe a plea agreement “in light of the fact that it
       constitutes a waiver of substantial constitutional rights requiring
       that the defendant be adequately warned of the consequences of
       the plea.” See United States v. Hunter, 835 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir.
       2016). When the government makes a material promise that in-
       duces a defendant to plead guilty, the government is bound by that
       promise. Id.
             “Whether the government violated the agreement is judged
       according to the defendant’s reasonable understanding at the time
       he entered his plea.” Id. “We apply an objective standard to ‘decide
       whether the government’s actions are inconsistent’ with the
USCA11 Case: 22-12855     Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023   Page: 7 of 9

       22-12855              Opinion of the Court                       7

       defendant’s understanding of the plea agreement.” Id. (citations
       omitted).
               Contrary to Lucas’s assertion, the record demonstrates that
       the government did actually recommend a sentence at the low end
       of the guidelines range. The government did so in writing in its 12
       August 2022 notice. The plea agreement contained no express lan-
       guage about the method or manner of the government’s recom-
       mendation on sentencing: only that the government recommend a
       low-end sentence. The government’s written recommendation
       satisﬁed the reasonable understanding of its obligation. That the
       government did not also make an oral recommendation at the sen-
       tencing hearing constitutes no breach of the plea agreement. The
       district court also conﬁrmed that it understood the government’s
       recommended sentence and had taken that recommendation into
       consideration.
             Nor is there evidence that the government’s failure to oﬀer
       an oral recommendation was inconsistent with its obligations un-
       der the plea agreement. At the sentencing hearing, the govern-
       ment made no statements in favor of an upward variance or that
       otherwise conﬂicted with its earlier recommendation for a low-end
       sentence. The government failed to make an oral recommenda-
       tion solely because the district court announced the sentence
USCA11 Case: 22-12855       Document: 35-1       Date Filed: 09/28/2023      Page: 8 of 9

       8                       Opinion of the Court                    22-12855

       without ﬁrst giving the government an opportunity to present ar-
       gument about the appropriate sentence. 2
             We also reject Lucas’s argument that the government
       breached the plea agreement by presenting damaging witness tes-
       timony. First, the plea agreement contained no limitation on the
       testimony and evidence that could be presented at the sentencing
       hearing. The plea agreement provided expressly that both parties
       were free to allocute fully.
               Moreover, the government presented the testimony of three
       of its witnesses -- K.L., Malone, and Oﬃcer Coleman -- in response
       to Lucas’s own objection to the section 2K2.1 enhancement. Given
       Lucas’s objection, the government bore the burden of presenting
       evidence suﬃcient to support the enhancement: evidence that
       would show that Lucas had possessed a gun in connection with an
       aggravated-stalking oﬀense. See United States v. Askew, 193 F.3d
       1181, 1183 (11th Cir. 1999) (“The Government bears the burden of
       establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary
       to support a sentencing enhancement.”). Nothing in the plea
       agreement can be construed reasonably as limiting the govern-
       ment’s ability to present evidence and argument about the proper
       calculation of the advisory guidelines range.
              The government also determined reasonably that it was ob-
       ligated to make the district court aware of Lucas’s post-plea

       2 On appeal, Lucas raises no substantive argument challenging the district

       court’s hearing conduct or announcement of sentence.
USCA11 Case: 22-12855    Document: 35-1   Date Filed: 09/28/2023   Page: 9 of 9

       22-12855             Opinion of the Court                    9

       conduct by presenting Mahoney’s testimony. The government’s
       decision was consistent with the terms of the plea agreement,
       which required the government to provide information about Lu-
       cas’s “conduct and background” that might inform the sentencing
       decision.
             Lucas has failed to show that the government breached the
       terms of the plea agreement. We aﬃrm.
             AFFIRMED.