Background
Faith Davis pleaded guilty to one count of assault. The district court sentenced her to 46 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
Under the plea agreement, the government agreed to move for an additional one-level offense-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) if the district court found Davis eligible for a two-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under § 3E1.1(a). Davis argued for the first time on appeal that comments the government made at sentencing about her acceptance of responsibility breached that agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Because Davis had not raised her breach claim in the district court, the appellate court reviewed it for plain error.
The court concluded that Davis’s argument rested on an unreasonable interpretation of the plea agreement. The government’s sentencing comments therefore did not breach its contractual obligation, and Davis established no error warranting relief.
Key Takeaways
- An unpreserved claim that the government breached a plea agreement is reviewed for plain error.
- The scope of the government’s plea-agreement obligations depends on a reasonable reading of the agreement.
- The government’s comments about acceptance of responsibility did not breach the specific promise Davis identified.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that defendants must ground plea-breach claims in the agreement’s actual language and preserve those claims in the district court. A broader interpretation unsupported by the bargain will not establish a breach, particularly under plain-error review.