Background
Daryl Smith pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia sentenced him to 120 months in prison.
On appeal, Smith argued that the Government breached the plea agreement by describing his criminal history as “understated” during sentencing. He contended that the remark implicitly advocated for an upward variance despite the Government’s agreement to recommend a sentence within the Guidelines range.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Because Smith did not object to the Government’s sentencing advocacy in the district court, the panel reviewed his claim for plain error, requiring an error that was clear or obvious rather than reasonably disputable.
The court concluded that the Government fulfilled its obligation by expressly recommending a sentence within the Guidelines range. Although the prosecutor emphasized Smith’s criminal history, the Government did so after Smith had spent significant time downplaying that history. The plea agreement expressly permitted the Government to respond to statements made by Smith or his counsel, so the district court did not plainly err by finding the prosecutor’s discussion within the agreement’s bounds.
Key Takeaways
- The Government satisfied the plea agreement by expressly recommending a sentence within the Guidelines range.
- A prosecutor’s response to a defendant’s characterization of his criminal history did not plainly breach an agreement that expressly authorized such responses.
- Because Smith raised no objection at sentencing, the appellate court reviewed the alleged breach only for plain error.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a sentencing recommendation cannot be evaluated in isolation from the plea agreement’s other terms. Language reserving the Government’s right to respond to defense arguments may permit pointed discussion of aggravating facts without contradicting an agreed recommendation.
It also underscores the importance of preserving an alleged plea-agreement breach through a timely objection at sentencing. Without one, a defendant must satisfy the more demanding plain-error standard on appeal.