USA V. JOSEPH MCDANIELS, No. 13-30026 (9th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 30 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-30026 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00185-JLR v. MEMORANDUM* JOSEPH A. McDANIELS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Joseph A. McDaniels appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 113-month prison sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for interstate transportation * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. McDaniels contends the government breached the plea agreement by advocating for a three-year term of supervised release in addition to the agreedupon term of imprisonment. We review de novo whether the government breached the plea agreement, see United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2012), and determine that it did not. The government performed its obligation under the agreement by recommending a 120-month term of imprisonment. Moreover, the district court properly concluded that the recommendation of a three-year term of supervised release did not breach the plea agreement, where the plea agreement advised McDaniels that a term of supervised release was one of the statutory penalties for his offense, and was silent regarding whether the government could recommend a term of supervised release. See United States v. Franco-Lopez, 312 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2002) (when construing a plea agreement, this court must determine what the defendant reasonably believed to be the terms of the plea agreement at the time of the plea). AFFIRMED. 2 13-30026

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.