Unpublished Disposition, 902 F.2d 1580 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Gary Tripp, a criminal defendant convicted of three offenses in connection with a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, challenges his sentence of 51 months incarceration and a $2,000 fine. Tripp argues that his sentence should be reversed because the Government violated the plea agreement and because the district court applied improper standards and refused to exercise its discretion to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm the sentence.

Tripp first argues that the Government violated the plea agreement because it did not make certain favorable recommendations to the district court. We look to the plea agreement itself to resolve any disputes, because "a plea agreement is contractual in nature and is measured by contract law standards." United States v. Read, 778 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1985). If disputed, the terms of the agreement will be determined by objective standards. United States v. Clark, 781 F.2d 730, 731 (9th Cir. 1986). We have reviewed the record and we do not find evidence of any promise by the Government to make the recommendations that Tripp cites. The plea agreement contains only two elements: (1) the Government agreed to drop count three of the indictment, and (2) Tripp agreed to plead guilty to the remaining counts and to cooperate with federal authorities. Tripp acknowledged at trial that this was the entire plea agreement and that the Government had made no other promises. The Government has abided by the express terms of the agreement. No breach occurred.

Tripp also argues that the district court erred by failing to exercise its discretion to sentence below the guideline range. See Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 5K1.1. We have no jurisdiction to hear this claim because "a district court's discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines is not subject to review on appeal." United States v. Morales, No. 89-10168, slip op. at 2430 (9th Cir. March 5, 1990). The district court considered all relevant factors and determined that the bottom end of the guidelines' range was appropriate for the defendant. It was not error for the district court to consider that the offense involved plotting with a jail inmate. That decision is not appealable.

AFFIRMED.