United States v. Ann Franzen
693 F. App'x 365
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ann Louise Franzen pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement to conspiracy to commit identity theft and theft of government property.
- The plea agreement stated the Government would consider filing a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion if it determined Franzen provided substantial assistance and fully complied with the agreement; the Government expressly retained discretion.
- The agreement included a general appeal waiver by Franzen.
- Franzen appealed, alleging the Government breached the plea agreement by refusing to consider whether to file a § 5K1.1 motion; she sought only a ruling that the Government consider filing the motion, not an order compelling filing.
- The Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver or, alternatively, for summary affirmance.
- Franzen did not raise the alleged breach in the district court, so appellate review was limited to plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government breached the plea agreement by refusing to consider filing a § 5K1.1 motion | Government refused to consider whether Franzen provided substantial assistance and complied, breaching the agreement | Plea agreement expressly preserved Government discretion to decide whether to move; no breach | No breach; Government retained discretion and refusal reviewed only for unconstitutional motive or irrationality, neither shown |
| Whether appellate review is barred by Franzen's appeal waiver | Waiver should not bar review of alleged breach | Franzen knowingly waived appeal rights and is bound by the waiver | Appeal waiver applies; Franzen bound and appeal dismissed |
| Standard of review for alleged breach not raised below | N/A—Franzen did not preserve issue below | Plain-error review applies because issue was not raised in district court | Plain-error standard applies; Franzen did not show plain error affecting substantial rights |
| Whether court should compel the Government to file a § 5K1.1 motion | Franzen sought only consideration, not compulsion | Government retains discretion to file or not; court cannot compel absent breach | Court denied relief; appeal dismissed and alternative summary affirmance denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valencia, 985 F.2d 758 (5th Cir.) (interpretation of plea agreement based on defendant's reasonable understanding)
- United States v. Garcia-Bonilla, 11 F.3d 45 (5th Cir.) (burden on defendant to prove plea agreement breach by preponderance)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S.) (plain-error review requirements for forfeited claims)
- United States v. Barnes, 730 F.3d 456 (5th Cir.) (application of plain-error standard in plea-agreement context)
- Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (U.S.) (prosecutorial discretion to move for downward departure absent contrary agreement)
- United States v. Aderholt, 87 F.3d 740 (5th Cir.) (refusal to file § 5K1.1 motion reviewable for unconstitutional motive)
- United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725 (5th Cir.) (validity and enforcement of appeal waivers)