23-13432
11th Cir.Jan 14, 2025Background
- Zac DeMyers was convicted and sentenced to 57 months for conspiracy to make false statements in relation to firearm purchases and illegal export.
- DeMyers entered a plea agreement with the government, which included terms about sentencing recommendations.
- At sentencing, the government argued for a higher base offense level than originally recommended in the plea agreement.
- DeMyers appealed, claiming the government breached the plea agreement by advocating for the harsher sentencing.
- The district court found the government’s actions were permissible given the terms of the plea agreement.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether the government’s conduct violated the agreement, focusing on whether it complied with both the letter and spirit of its promises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the plea agreement by supporting a higher offense level than promised? | DeMyers: Government promised to recommend a lower offense level and advocating otherwise breached the agreement. | Government: The agreement allowed disclosure of all facts and circumstances, so providing accurate information to the court was not a breach. | No breach; agreement explicitly allowed both parties to inform the court of all facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (prosecutor's promises in inducement of plea must be fulfilled)
- United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101 (standard for reviewing government breach of plea agreement)
- United States v. Hunter, 835 F.3d 1320 (government bound by material plea agreement promises)
- United States v. Taylor, 77 F.3d 368 (breach occurs when government advocates against its agreement promises)