Unpublished Disposition, 925 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Jose Federico Rendon-Rendon appeals his sentence, imposed under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) following his conviction on a guilty plea, for conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute. While conceding that a prior conviction accorded him the status of a Guidelines criminal history Category III offender, Rendon-Rendon claims the government breached an implied provision of the plea agreement by failing to inform the district court that the agreement contemplated Rendon-Rendon's being sentenced as a Category I offender. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review for clear error a district court's construction of a plea agreement. United States v. Keller, 902 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1990). In deciding whether a plea agreement has been violated, the district court looks to what the defendant reasonably understood when he entered his plea of guilty. United States v. Travis, 735 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1984). A defendant's mistake of law will not void a plea agreement. United States v. Zweber, 913 F.2d 705, 713 (9th Cir. 1990).

Rendon-Rendon pleaded guilty to a superseding information charging him in one count with conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute. In return, the government agreed to (1) dismiss the two-count indictment, (2) recommend a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, (3) withdraw its notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 851 based on Rendon-Rendon's prior felony conviction, and (4) "recommend the middle of the appropriate guidelines, whatever they may be" (ER at 20).¹  Although Rendon-Rendon agreed with the government's characterization of the agreement at the change of plea hearing, he now claims the government's promise not to seek a statutory ten-year minimum sentence for earlier conduct induced him to believe that he would be sentenced under the Guidelines as a first-time offender.

The government's agreement not to seek enhanced penalties is unrelated to the Guidelines' consideration of a defendant's criminal history. To the extent that Rendon-Rendon believed he would be sentenced as a first-time offender, his belief was unreasonable. See Travis, 735 F.2d at 1132. Neither the government nor the district court was bound by Rendon-Rendon's mistake. See Zweber, 913 F.2d 713. Thus, the district court properly sentenced Rendon-Rendon as a Category III offender.² 

AFFIRMED.