01-1729 U.S. v. Byrd

Listen to this article

“Byrd argued that imposing a 12-month sentence would in essence deprive him of any benefit for acceptance of responsibility because 12 months was the maximum sentence he could have received by statute.

“Byrd submits that although the government did not overtly violate the terms of the plea agreement (because it did agree with the two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility), it breached the agreement in spirit by requesting a 12-month sentence. But the plea agreement does not bind the government to recommend a particular sentence within the guideline range and in fact specifically provides that ‘the United States has made no promises or guarantees regarding the sentence which will be recommended by the United States or imposed by the Court.’ The agreement further states that ‘[t]he United States reserves the right to make whatever comments it deems relevant to the sentencing process.’ In short, the agreement does not in any way restrict the government from recommending a sentence at the top of the guideline range, and so no breach occurred.”

Affirmed in part, dismissed for want of jurisdiction in part.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Shabaz, J., Per Curiam