United States v. Deldrick Demone Jackson, 635 F. App'x 657

Jackson pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and to launder money, under a plea agreement requiring cooperation; the government agreed to consider a §5K1.1/3553(e) substantial-assistance motion but warned cooperation would be forfeited if he committed additional crimes.
After pleading but before sentencing, while on bond, Jackson admitted (without counsel present and without Miranda warnings) that he participated in moving 300–400 lbs of marijuana for a new trafficking group.
The government initially filed a §5K1.1 motion but withdrew it after learning of Jackson’s post-plea criminal activity, citing the plea-agreement forfeiture provision.
At sentencing the district court found Jackson had engaged in new criminal activity, held the government permissibly withdrew its §5K1.1 motion, but nonetheless exercised discretion to grant a downward variance and sentenced Jackson to 130 months (below the guideline range).
Jackson appealed, arguing the government breached the plea agreement by withdrawing the §5K1.1 motion and by using his self-incriminating statements to justify the withdrawal; he also vaguely asserted Miranda/attorney-rights claims but did not adequately brief them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government breached the plea agreement by withdrawing a §5K1.1 motion after filing it	Jackson: Agreement barred withdrawal; government had no right to file then retract a promised benefit	Government: Agreement only required it to "consider" whether cooperation warranted a motion and expressly forfeited consideration if defendant committed new crimes; withdrawal was permitted	Court: No breach — plea required only that gov't consider a motion; withdrawal after defendant committed new crimes was lawful
Whether using Jackson’s self-incriminating statements to withdraw the §5K1.1 motion violated the agreement’s protection against using such statements to increase guideline range or bring charges	Jackson: Gov’t relied on his statements (obtained without Miranda/counsel) contrary to promise not to use self-incriminating info	Government: Agreement barred use of such info only for guideline calculation or new charges, not for determining whether to file a §5K1.1 motion	Court: No breach — the agreement and U.S.S.G. §1B1.8 allow using admissions to decide whether to file a §5K1.1 motion

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (government promises in plea agreements must be honored; district court may fashion remedies for breach)
In re Arnett, 804 F.2d 1200 (11th Cir. 1986) (avoid hypertechnical readings of plea agreements; ambiguities read against government)
United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492 (11th Cir. 1993) (where gov't only must "consider" a §5K1.1 motion, refusal to file does not breach the agreement)
Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992) (gov't refusal to file §5K1.1 motion invalid only if based on unconstitutional motive)
United States v. Carlson, 87 F.3d 440 (11th Cir. 1996) (standard of review for plea-agreement breach questions)
United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (issues not adequately briefed are abandoned)