Background
Biniah Carter pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement to conspiracy to commit mail and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.
The district court sentenced Carter to two days, with credit for time served, on the conspiracy count and a consecutive 24-month prison term on the aggravated-identity-theft count. The latter term was the statutory mandatory minimum. Carter argued at sentencing that the government had breached the plea agreement, but the district court rejected that contention after requesting supplemental briefing and considering the issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. Carter renewed her argument that the district court had erred by denying her motion to enforce the plea agreement, but the appellate court stated that its review of the record revealed no reversible error.
The unpublished per curiam opinion did not provide further analysis of the alleged breach. The court decided the appeal without oral argument because the written materials adequately presented the facts and legal contentions and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s rejection of Carter’s claim that the government breached her written plea agreement.
- Carter’s 24-month sentence for aggravated identity theft remained consecutive to the sentence imposed for the fraud-conspiracy count.
- The decision is unpublished and is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves Carter’s conviction and sentence intact, including the mandatory consecutive 24-month term for aggravated identity theft. Because the court offered only a record-based conclusion and no detailed discussion of the plea agreement or the asserted breach, the opinion provides limited guidance for future plea-agreement disputes.