United States v. Edgar Vallejo, 463 F. App'x 849

Vallejo pled guilty to Count 3, engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, with Counts 1 and 2 to be dismissed.
Under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea, the parties agreed the disposition was a 22-year sentence and a $1 million fine, with credit for time served; no supervised release term is mentioned in the disposition.
At the change-of-plea, the court stated the sentence range could be 20 years to life and discussed a supervised release term, which the government indicated could be five years to life.
Vallejo testified he understood the 22-year imprisonment and $1 million fine, and the court accepted the plea agreement.
At sentencing, Vallejo was actually sentenced to 264 months (22 years) plus a $1 million fine and a 5-year supervised release term.
Vallejo objected to the supervised release term, arguing it was not part of the plea agreement and the court lacked authority to impose it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court breach the plea agreement by imposing supervised release?	Vallejo contends the agreement did not include supervised release.	Vallejo argues the court could impose supervised release despite the agreement because of its discussion of sentencing procedures.	Yes, district court breached; remand for resentencing without supervised release.

United States v. Dean, 80 F.3d 1535 (11th Cir. 1996) (court cannot modify an accepted Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea)
United States v. Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527 (11th Cir. 1992) (specific performance or withdrawal when plea agreement breached)
United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2004) (ambiguous plea terms read against government)
United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2008) (scope of plea agreement and objective standard for interpretation)
United States v. Young, 131 F.3d 1437 (11th Cir. 1997) (de novo review of plea construction and scope)