Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-16

The dc-circuit affirmed the appellant’s convictions and sentence after determining that while the government breached its Plea Agreement by implicitly advocating for a sentence above the agreed-upon Guidelines range, the breach did not warrant reversal under plain error review. The court held that the government violated its commitment to cap allocution at the top of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range (77 to 96 months) when it stated in its sentencing memorandum and during allocution that the appellant’s criminal history score “does not capture [the] totality of his criminal behavior” and referenced an alternative, higher Guidelines range of 92 to 115 months. This conduct was found to transgress the agreed norm by introducing an implicit notion of an upward variance contrary to the plea terms. However, the court concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that this breach affected his sentence because the district court imposed its 115-month upward variance based on four specific reasons unrelated to the government’s improper advocacy: the appellant’s lengthy history of gun and drug violations making him a “de facto career offender,” the brandishing of a firearm supported by an excited utterance from a 9-1-1 caller, the abandonment of a loaded firearm near an elementary school, and possession of three different dangerous drugs. Additionally, the court found no procedural error in the district court’s fact-finding or its explanation for the sentence, ruling that the findings regarding brandishing were supported by evidence, the consideration of uncharged conduct was permissible, and the court provided specific reasons distinguishing the appellant from others in the same Guidelines range. Consequently, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.