959 F.3d 919
8th Cir.2020Background:
- Eric Zurheide was arrested in a sting after attempting a pre-arranged sexual contact with an alleged minor; one of his phones contained child pornography.
- Indicted on two counts: (1) attempt to entice a minor, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); (2) receipt of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2).
- Under a written Rule 11(c)(1)(A) plea agreement the parties jointly recommended a 70-month prison term; Zurheide acknowledged the district court was not bound by the agreement.
- The Sentencing Guidelines range was calculated at 70–87 months; the district court repeatedly described the facts as “particularly disturbing.”
- At sentencing the prosecutor, after noting the joint recommendation, explained why the government agreed to 70 months and urged the court to consider the guidelines; defense made no objection.
- The district court imposed an 84-month sentence; Zurheide appealed, arguing the government breached the plea agreement by failing to zealously defend the 70-month recommendation.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by its sentencing remarks | Zurheide: govt paid lip service to 70‑month recommendation but failed to argue for it, breaching the plea deal | Government: it recommended 70 months and explained why; not required to zealously defend recommendation before a hostile judge | No breach; prosecutor’s tepid advocacy does not violate agreement; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rendon, 752 F.3d 1130 (8th Cir. 2014) (plain‑error and prejudice standard for plea‑agreement breach claims)
- United States v. Baker, 674 F.3d 1066 (8th Cir. 2012) (plain‑error test elements)
- Jeffries v. United States, 721 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2013) (court unlikely to be swayed by a tepid prosecutorial statement when judge’s comments show firm stance)