United States v. Sonya Michelle Pittman
15-13728
| 11th Cir. | Sep 20, 2017Background
- Sonya Pittman pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (Count 2) under a plea agreement that included a sealed cooperation addendum promising the Government would move for a §5K1.1/18 U.S.C. §3553(e) reduction if she completed cooperation, but that the Government had "sole discretion" to determine whether she satisfied the cooperation obligations.
- The addendum required truthful, full cooperation (including interviews, document review, testimony, and possible polygraph) and warned that failure would free the Government from its commitments; it did not require any on-the-record determination by the Government about fulfillment.
- A §851 notice increased Pittman’s statutory exposure because of a prior felony drug conviction, producing a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years; the PSR yielded a guideline range of 262–327 months (career offender), but the statutory minimum controlled sentencing.
- At sentencing neither Pittman nor the Government raised the cooperation/substantial-assistance issue, and the Government did not file a §3553(e)/5K1.1 motion; the district court imposed the 20-year statutory minimum and Pittman raised no contemporaneous objection.
- On appeal (plain-error review because no district-court objection), Pittman argued (1) breach of the plea agreement by the Government’s failure to file a substantial-assistance motion and (2) the Government’s failure to state on the record that it had decided whether she had fulfilled her obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pittman) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov’t breached plea agreement by not filing a §3553(e)/5K1.1 motion | Pittman contends she completed cooperation and thus the Government was obligated to move for a downward departure | Agreement gave Government sole discretion to decide whether she satisfied obligations; decision not to move is unreviewable absent unconstitutional basis | No plain error; no breach because Government had unreviewable sole discretion to determine satisfaction and to move (or not) under §3553(e) |
| Whether the Government was required to state on the record that it had determined Pittman failed to fulfill cooperation | Pittman argues the Government should have affirmatively stated, on the record, whether it had determined she satisfied obligations | Government cites lack of any contractual or circuit precedent requiring on-the-record statement; §3553(e) motions are discretionary and decision is unreviewable absent unconstitutional motive | No plain error; no controlling authority requires an on-the-record determination and Lukse (6th Cir.) is not controlling or factually analogous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. De La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for plea-agreement breach)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error framework requires a clear or obvious legal error)
- United States v. Hoffman, 710 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2013) (plainness standard; on-point precedent requirement)
- United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2004) (two-step plea-agreement interpretation: ambiguity then enforcement)
- United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492 (11th Cir. 1993) (Government decision not to file §3553(e) motion is unreviewable absent unconstitutional motive)
- United States v. Lukse, 286 F.3d 906 (6th Cir. 2002) (discussed — holding that Govt failed to prove defendants breached cooperation; circuit not controlling for plain-error here)