Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 10-5009
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:08-cr-00050-FL-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Reginald Holden pled guilty to possession of a
firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18
U.S.C.
922(g)(1)
district
court
departure
(2006).
granted
based
Before
the
upon
sentencing
Governments
Holdens
Holden,
motion
substantial
for
the
downward
assistance,
and
Holden
argues
that,
upon
execution
of
the
On
plea
agreement
statements
to
became
enhance
protected
his
and
sentence
that
based
the
upon
use
the
of
his
number
of
Holden
did
not
object
to
the
use
of
his
the
Government
breached
the
plea
agreement.
United
States v. Lewis, 633 F.3d 262, 267 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating
standard
of
review).
To
establish
plain
error,
Holden
must
that
affects
the
defendants
substantial
rights,
and
587 F.3d 640, 645 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Puckett v. United
States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1428 (2009)).
When, as here, the parties dispute the interpretation
of
language
in
principles.
the
plea
agreement,
we
apply
basic
contract
that
it
can
consideration
be
[to
said
to
plead
be
part
guilty],
of
the
such
inducement
promise
must
or
be
fulfilled.
the
Id.
government
responsibility
than
the
to
defendant
greater
for
degree
imprecisions
of
or
omitted).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the
record on appeal and conclude that the Government did not breach
the plea agreement.
statements
shall
not
be
used
Guidelines
range,
except
Guidelines
Manual
1B1.8
permits
consideration
of
to
as
determine
provided
(2003).
information
3
Holdens
by
U.S.
Section
that
was
advisory
Sentencing
1B1.8,
known
however,
to
the
1B1.8(b)(1).
signed
the
plea
Here,
agreement,
more
than
he
told
one
year
before
authorities
Holden
about
his
the
objection
record
to
sentencing.
the
to
the
ineffective
indicates
use
of
that
assistance
counsel
Holdens
had
of
no
pre-plea
counsel
meritorious
statements
at
standard).
We
therefore
decline
to
address
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED