United States v. Alvin Johnson, 119 F.4th 343

Alvin Johnson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) per a written plea agreement; the government dismissed another charge as part of the bargain.
The plea agreement stipulated to a specific drug quantity and base offense level (22) for sentencing purposes, but reserved the government’s right to make a sentencing recommendation and present evidence.
Johnson was initially sentenced as a career offender, resulting in a higher guideline range, but challenged one of his predicate convictions and succeeded in modifying it, leading to a resentencing.
On remand, Johnson’s guidelines range was lowered (57-71 months), but the government sought an upward departure based on his extensive criminal history, and the court imposed a 120-month sentence.
Johnson did not object at sentencing that the government’s argument for a higher sentence breached the plea agreement; his sole appellate claim is that such conduct was a breach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether gov't breached plea agreement by seeking upward variance	Govt's reserved right to recommend sentencing was limited by the guideline stipulation	Govt's reserved right was broad; plea did not restrict seeking a variance	No breach; government fulfilled plea terms
Whether plea agreement was ambiguous or vague	Govt's recommendation right was restricted by silence/implication	Govt's right was explicit and unrestricted absent a clear waiver	No ambiguity; plain language controls
Whether upward variance motion provided no benefit to Johnson under the plea	Stipulating to guideline range meaningless if govt can seek any sentence	Govt stood by drug conduct stipulation; only used criminal history for variance	Agreed stipulation did not restrict variance motion
Whether plain error occurred (appellate standard)	Govt plainly breached and undermined fairness	No breach, no plain error—govt did as agreed	No plain error; Johnson failed to meet burden

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (if plea rests on prosecution's promise, that promise must be fulfilled)
United States v. Lewis, 633 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2011) (plea agreements interpreted using contract principles; de novo review)
United States v. Edgell, 914 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2019) (government breaches plea if it fails to honor explicit sentencing recommendations)
United States v. Barefoot, 754 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2014) (plea agreements construed as a whole, giving effect to all terms)