United States v. Harlan Salmona, 810 F.3d 806

Background

In 1989 Salmona pleaded guilty in Florida to second-degree murder and received a life sentence; the same month he entered a federal plea agreement in a marijuana-smuggling case promising to “cooperate fully and completely.”
The federal plea agreement promised use immunity for truthful statements and said the U.S. Attorney’s Office would apply to admit Salmona to the federal witness protection program and allow him to serve his Florida sentence in federal custody.
Salmona testified before a federal grand jury and at trial but later admitted he fabricated that testimony and pleaded guilty to two perjury counts; the government then transferred him to state custody in 1992.
Salmona repeatedly sought enforcement of the federal-custody provision; after litigation he was returned to federal custody in 1995 and remained there until completing his federal sentence in 2011, after which he was again transferred to state custody.
In 2014 Salmona moved to compel the government to return him to federal custody under the plea agreement; he conceded he breached the agreement (perjury) but argued the agreement’s rescission clause limited the government’s remedy to voiding use immunity.
The district court denied relief, concluding Salmona’s perjury was a substantial breach freeing the government from its obligations; the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal court had jurisdiction to compel enforcement of the plea agreement decades later (mandamus)	Salmona argued the court could and should compel performance under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus) to enforce the plea agreement’s federal-custody promise	Government argued jurisdiction was lacking or, at minimum, mandamus was inappropriate because Salmona substantially breached the agreement	Court held the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; mandamus inappropriate because Salmona did not have an indisputable right to relief given his substantial breach
Whether Salmona’s perjury constituted a substantial breach releasing the government from obligations	Salmona conceded perjury but argued the agreement’s clause made voiding use immunity the sole remedy; other provisions must remain enforceable	Government argued perjury was a substantial breach and could permit rescission of the entire agreement under contract principles	Court found the breach substantial and that whether rescission of all obligations was barred by the specific clause was debatable — therefore Salmona lacked the clear, indisputable right required for mandamus
Whether prior government conduct (position in 1995) estopped or waived its right to rescind	Salmona argued judicial estoppel, waiver, or ratification based on the government’s earlier position that secured his return to federal custody	Government argued earlier actions did not preclude later assertion that breach permits rescission	Court held these defenses were not indisputably meritorious for purposes of mandamus jurisdiction
Whether Rule 11 or other criminal rules supply jurisdiction to enforce plea agreements	Salmona invoked Rule 11 and district-court authority relating to pleas	Government and court noted Rule 11 governs plea procedure but is not a jurisdictional grant	Court held Rule 11 does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the motion to compel

Key Cases Cited

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdiction is a threshold question)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; contractual interpretation does not create jurisdiction)
Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394 (mandamus is drastic and requires extraordinary circumstances)
Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir.) (mandamus is extraordinary; plaintiff must show no other adequate remedy and a clear right to relief)
In re Arnett, 804 F.2d 1200 (11th Cir.) (prior Eleventh Circuit mandamus order enforcing plea agreement terms—discussed but not dispositive on jurisdiction)
United States v. Wood, 780 F.2d 929 (11th Cir.) (defendant’s failure to comply with truthful-disclosure term can constitute a substantial breach)
United States v. Kelly, 337 F.3d 897 (7th Cir.) (substantial breach of an unambiguous plea agreement generally frees the government to rescind)