United States v. Brandon Tate
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 500
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brandon Tate pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base under a written plea agreement in which the government promised to "seek a sentence at the lowest end of . . . the 'applicable guideline range.'"
- Tate waived most appeal rights in the plea agreement except claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct; he confirmed the waiver at his Rule 11 hearing.
- A revised PSR produced a total offense level 21 and Criminal History Category IV, yielding a 57–71 month Guidelines range; Tate objected, arguing the correct range was 46–57 months.
- The district court overruled Tate’s objections, adopted the 57–71 month range, and the government recommended 57 months (the low end of the court’s range); the court sentenced Tate to 57 months.
- Tate appealed, alleging the government breached the plea agreement by recommending 57 months instead of a 46-month recommendation based on Tate’s view of the correct range. The government argued the appeal was barred by the waiver.
- The Fourth Circuit held (1) the appeal waiver does not bar a government-breach claim, and (2) the government did not breach because "applicable guideline range" unambiguously means the range determined by the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tate) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tate's appeal waiver bars his breach claim | Waiver should not bar claim of government breach | Waiver bars appeals of sentence; breach claim is barred | Waiver does not bar government-breach claims; reviewable |
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by recommending 57 months | "Applicable guideline range" meant the correct (lower) Guidelines range (46–57), so government should have recommended 46 months | Phrase means the range determined by the district court; government complied by recommending the low end of that range | No breach: phrase unambiguously refers to the district court’s determined range |
| Standard of review for unraised claim | Plain error review applies because issue not raised below | Same — plain error governs | Plain error applies, but appeal fails at the first prong (no error) |
| Whether any ambiguity in the plea agreement should be construed against the government | Ambiguity would favor Tate | Agreement is unambiguous; even if ambiguous, construing against drafter applies | Agreement unambiguous; construed in ordinary sense to mean court-determined range |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (plea agreements breached when prosecutorial promises go unfulfilled)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain error review framework)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (district court determines the applicable Guidelines range)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (procedural sentencing sequence and court's role in determining range)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Guidelines as the starting point and benchmark)
- United States v. Dawson, 587 F.3d 640 (government-breach claims not foreclosed by appeal waivers)
- United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399 (interpretation of plea provisions referencing the Guidelines)
- United States v. Peglera, 33 F.3d 412 (government bound only by promises actually made in plea agreements)
- United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191 (read plea agreements' plain language in ordinary sense)