612 F. App'x 778
5th Cir.2015Background
- Pedro Rosales pleaded guilty to distribution of child pornography and received a 232-month prison sentence and five years’ supervised release.
- The plea agreement included the Government’s promise not to oppose a reduction for acceptance of responsibility (§ 3E1.1), but did not promise to recommend that reduction.
- The Government later advocated for a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice (§ 3C1.1), based on facts known when the plea was made.
- The district court appeared to treat an obstruction enhancement as foreclosing any acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; neither party corrected that apparent misunderstanding at sentencing.
- Rosales appealed, arguing the Government’s advocacy for the obstruction enhancement breached the plea agreement by undermining the promised non-opposition to his acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error because Rosales did not raise the issue below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government breached the plea agreement by advocating an obstruction enhancement after promising not to oppose acceptance of responsibility | Rosales contends the Government’s support for an obstruction enhancement was inconsistent with its promise not to oppose an acceptance reduction, effectively breaching the plea agreement | Government argues its promise not to oppose did not bar it from advocating for a guideline enhancement; it complied with the plea terms and did not actively oppose the reduction | The court held any breach was not "clear or obvious" under plain-error review and affirmed; Government’s conduct was not plainly erroneous though the court disapproved of its silence at sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Puckett, 556 U.S. 129 (standard for plain-error review)
- United States v. Enriquez, 42 F.3d 769 (2d Cir.) (promise not to oppose acceptance does not generally bar advocating an obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407 (5th Cir.) (GOVERNMENT’S non-opposition to acceptance does not necessarily prohibit advocating other relevant conduct)