Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 06-5088
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:04-cr-00235-RWT)
Submitted:
Decided:
June 4, 2008
PER CURIAM:
Gwendolyn Maria Levi appeals from her conviction for
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute one
kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2000).
Levi pleaded guilty to the charge pursuant to a plea agreement with
the Government; however, she subsequently breached the agreement by
refusing to testify at the trial of three of her co-defendants, one
of whom was her son.
evaluating
claim
alleging
breach
of
plea
Cir. 2000).
law; each party to the agreement should receive the benefit of its
bargain.
2006).
1993); see also United States v. Scruggs, 356 F.3d 539, 543 (4th
Cir. 2004).
While the terms of the plea agreement expressly permitted
the Government to seek a continuance of the sentencing hearing,2
Levi claims the Government was aware of her breach and continued to
operate under the plea agreement, thereby obtaining a benefit by
representing to Levis co-defendants that she was still available
to
testify
at
their
trials.
In
light
of
the
Governments
permitted under the terms of the plea agreement, and despite Levis
initial refusal to testify, the Government was entitled to enforce
this provision of the agreement in an effort to remedy that
refusal.
See
Scruggs,
356
F.3d
at
545.
Furthermore,
the
did
not
constitute
waiver
of
the
breach,
as
the
Cf. United States v. Vogt, 901 F.2d 100, 102-03 (8th Cir.
1990).
While
Levi
conceded
she
was
in
breach
of
the
plea
- 4 -
threat of her testimony as a bargaining chip against her codefendants; however, there is no evidence the Government obtained
any substantive benefit by identifying her as a possible witness.
As the district court noted, despite the possibility of Levi
providing testimony for the Government, none of the co-defendants
entered guilty pleas.
of
her
testimony
benefitted
the
Government
is
completely
(expected
defendants
benefits
subjective
from
plea
beliefs
agreement
regarding
are
not
utility
based
of
on
their
cooperation).
Furthermore, even assuming the Government obtained some
marginal benefit by having Levi listed as a possible witness, the
fact remains that the Government did not obtain the performance for
which it had bargained namely, Levis testimony against her codefendants at trial.
- 5 -
Therefore, Levis
claim that the Government waived its right to pursue remedies for
her breach of the plea agreement is meritless.
Accordingly, we affirm Levis conviction and sentence.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
AFFIRMED
- 6 -