United States of America v. Lucas Donell Green

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LUCAS DONELL GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (CR-04-58)
Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lucas Donell Green pled guilty to armed bank robbery and
use, carry, and possess a firearm in connection with a crime of
violence. Green and the Government stipulated to a number of
sentencing factors. The district court sentenced Green to a total
of 130 months incarceration. On appeal, Green contends that the
Government breached the plea agreement by presenting testimony and
argument in favor of an enhancement to his sentence for the taking
of the security guard’s firearm during the bank robbery. Green
contends that, because this was not a stipulated sentencing factor,
the Government was barred by the plea agreement from arguing in
favor of the enhancement. We agree with the district court that
there was no breach of the plea agreement and therefore affirm
Green’s sentence.
“It is well—established that the interpretation of plea
agreements is rooted in contract law, and that ‘each party should
receive the benefit of its bargain.’” United States v. Peglera, 33
F.3d 412, 413 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Ringling,
988 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1993)). The plea agreement between the
Government and Green provided that the memorandum of plea agreement
contained the entirety of the agreement between the parties and
that there existed no other agreements or terms. The agreement
listed the sentencing factors to which the parties stipulated. The
agreement also required the Government to recommend that Green be

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
sentenced at the low end of the guideline range and to advise the
court about Green’s cooperation. There was no agreement limiting
the parties from arguing about the applicability of other
sentencing factors.
Green argues that he relied on the Government’s
stipulation to some sentencing factors to mean that it would not
argue for other increases. Because the plea agreement did not
limit the Government or the Defendant from arguing any sentencing
factor other than those to which the parties stipulated, the
Government’s introduction of evidence in support of the one-level
increase for the taking of the security guard’s firearm did not
amount to a breach of the plea agreement. See United States v.
Fentress, 792 F.2d 461, 464-65 (4th Cir. 1986) (“While the
government must be held to promises it made, it will not be bound
to those it did not make.”); see also United States v. Snow, 234
F.3d 187, 189 (4th Cir. 2000) (discussing defendant’s burden to
establish breach of plea agreement by preponderance of evidence).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s determination
that there was no breach of the plea agreement and therefore affirm
Green’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --