Government did not breach plea agreement by providing district court with information concerning defendant’s leader-organizer role in offense

PLEA AGREEMENT/SENTENCNG United States v. Rodriguez-Delma, No. 05-3297, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Aug. 9, 2006)(Kansas). Appeal of conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and possession of firearm during and in relation to drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). HELD: (1) Where government agreed not to contest defendant’s opposition to application of leader-organizer sentence enhancement, government did not breach plea agreement by providing district court with information concerning defendant’s management role in criminal enterprise. Terms of plea agreement permitted Government to discuss “entirety of the defendant’s criminal activities” and therefore, discussion of scope of defendant’s criminal activity was necessarily permitted as well, as long as such discussion did not rise to level of advocacy. (2) Fact that defendant objected to conclusion in presentence report is not sufficient to imply that controverted matter exists. Because defendant failed to make any allegations of factual inaccuracy, district court’s fact-finding obligation under Rule 32(i)(3)(B) was never triggered. Therefore, it was not error for district court to adopt uncontested facts in presentence report under Rule 32(i)(3)(A). Read the opinion here.