Clark v. United States, 51 A.3d 1266

Clark pleaded guilty to armed robbery under a plea agreement that capped allocution at 10 years and dismissed charges; the government initially breached by seeking a 20-year sentence in its sentencing memorandum.
The breach was acknowledged by the government, and the trial judge addressed it at sentencing, with the prosecutor withdrawing the improper memorandum.
Defense counsel did not object to the judge’s handling and agreed to proceed with the corrected process.
The judge proceeded with sentencing after counsel’s agreement, ultimately imposing a ten-year term aligned with the capped allocution.
Clark filed a handwritten notice of appeal arguing government breach; the central issue is whether the breach warrants vacating the sentence and re-sentencing before a different judge.
The court applies plain-error review since Clark did not timely object to trial-court conduct, and affirms the judgment after concluding no reversible error and no proper preservation of the substantive claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government breached the plea agreement on allocution.	Clark	Clark	Plain breach; affirmed remedy and sentence not vacated.
Whether the breach requires vacating and re-sentencing before a different judge.	Clark	Clark	Not warranted under plain error; no reversible error.
Whether Clark preserved the claims for appeal.	Clark	Clark	Claims not properly preserved; plain-error review applied.

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (four-prong plain-error test for appellate review)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (four-prong plain-error framework detailed by Supreme Court)
United States v. Walker, 473 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (improper prosecutorial recommendations and trial-court focus on plea terms)
Evans v. Schoonmaker, 2 App.D.C. 67 (1893) (party cannot complain of actions participated in below)