US v. Jesus Perez-Laguna, No. 08-4757 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4757 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESUS PEREZ-LAGUNA, a/k/a Manuel, Defendant - Appellant. No. 08-4758 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESUS PEREZ-LAGUNA, a/k/a Manuel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00468-JFA-1; 3:07-cr-01162-JFA-1) Submitted: October 22, 2009 Decided: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. December 16, 2009 Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Sneed, ROB SNEED LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Dennis J. Dimsey, Conor B. Dugan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Following a guilty plea, Jesus Perez-Laguna was convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, sex-trafficking interstate transport a of minor a minor for private with financial intent to gain, engage in prostitution, importing and harboring an alien for the purpose of prostitution, and recruiting a minor to engage in a commercial sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 371, 1591, 1594(a), 2423(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009), and 8 U.S.C.A. § 1328 (2006). The district court sentenced Laguna to 170 months imprisonment. Perez-Laguna s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that no meritorious issues for appeal exist, but questioning whether the Government breached the plea agreement. Perez-Laguna asserted in his pro se supplemental brief that the Government and the U.S. Probation district court Office breached incorrectly his determined plea his agreement offense calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. sentencing hearing. We previously denied and level the when He asks for a new the Government s motion to dismiss and now consider the merits of the appeal. The government breaches a plea agreement if a promise that induced the plea goes unfulfilled. 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). Santobello v. New York, A criminal defendant who asserts the 3 government breached a plea agreement bears the burden of proving such a breach by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Snow, 234 F.3d 187, 189 (4th Cir. 2000). This court agreements de novo. (4th Cir. 2007). reviews the interpretation of plea United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191, 195 Interpretation of plea agreements is guided by contract law to ensure that each party receives the benefit of the bargain. guilty plea, degree of Id. this Due to the constitutional implications of a court holds responsibility the Government to a the defendant . . than imprecisions or ambiguities in plea agreements. greater . for Id. at 196 (quoting United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 300 (4th Cir. 1986)). In other words, courts should interpret ambiguities in the agreement in the defendant s favor. 303. Harvey, 791 F.2d at Courts should apply the plain language of the agreement and not write the contracts of the parties retroactively. Jordan, 509 F.3d at 195 (quoting United States v. Race, 632 F.2d 1114, 1119 (4th Cir. 1980)). Perez-Laguna argues here, as he did below, that the disputed provision of the plea agreement unambiguously requires the Government to move for an additional third level of reduction if he qualified for the two-level reduction in U.S. Sentencing district Guidelines court Manual applied the § 3E1.1(a) decrease 4 (2006). under When § 3E1.1(a), the it necessarily found that Perez-Laguna qualified for that decrease, triggering the Government s duty to decrease permitted by § 3E1.1(b). move for the additional The Government argues that the plea agreement required it to move for a third level of reduction only if Perez-Laguna readily demonstrated acceptance of responsibility, another way only and by that one taking its can interpret terms out of the contract context. The Government asserts that Perez-Laguna did not qualify for any decrease under demonstrate[] § 3E1.1(a) acceptance because of he did responsibility for not his readily offenses, but the Government nonetheless refrained from arguing against the two-level reduction out of generosity. argument is between the readily thus grounded plea in the agreement s demonstrate difference requirement acceptance Guidelines standard that defendant s offense acceptance. of in that terminology Perez-Laguna responsibility if district he court clearly may and the See USSG § 3E1.1. level the The Government s reduce demonstrates a such The Government s argument confirms that the disputed provision is, at best, ambiguous. The parties statements during the sentencing hearing indicate that they had conflicting understandings of the provision. Under the plea bargaining principles stated above, the provision must be construed in the 5 defendant s favor. * Thus, we conclude the Government breached the plea agreement when it failed to move for a third level of reduction for acceptance States v. Cachucha, 484 of responsibility. 1266, F.3d See Cir. 1270 (10th United 2007) (holding that the government breached the agreement to recommend a certain Guidelines range apply when it argued that the applicable range was way too low ); Dunn v. Colleran, 247 F.3d 450, 459-64 (3d Cir. 2001) (finding the government breached plea agreement by requesting a lengthy and considerable term of incarceration rather than a sentence between three and five years as agreed, even though the defendant refused to accept responsibility for his actions); United States v. Goings, 200 F.3d 539, 544 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding the government breached the plea agreement by not affirmatively recommending a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility). Where obligations the regarding government breaches sentencing, the its remedy plea may agreement be either specific performance of the agreement or the opportunity for the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea. * Santobello, 404 U.S. at This does not mean that in a proper case it might not be possible to establish by extrinsic evidence that the parties to an ambiguously worded plea agreement actually had agreed--or mutually manifested their assent to--an interpretation as urged by the Government. United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986). 6 263. When remand for resentencing is appropriate, a different judge should ordinarily be assigned. Id. (emphasizing that this is in no sense to question the fairness of the sentencing judge ). Perez-Laguna district court agreement level, by the objecting and argues U.S. applying to the his Probation USSG Government in presentence se Office § 2A3.1 breached pro to the that the his breached determine plea report s brief plea his agreement application offense by of not USSG § 2A3.1, and the district court incorrectly applied USSG § 2A3.1 to determine his offense level. We have reviewed the record and find these contentions lacking in merit. Perez-Laguna has not sought to withdraw his plea and requests remand of his case for resentencing. Accordingly, we affirm and the resentencing convictions, before a vacate different the sentence, judge. In remand accordance for with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no other meritorious issues for appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.