United States of America v. Deontae Donald Griffin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEONTAE DONALD GRIFFIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-50057
D.C. No.
2:21-cr-00463-SVW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 24, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,*** District
Judge.
Deontae Griffin (Griffin), who entered a guilty plea pursuant to a plea
FILED
AUG 28 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

agreement for possession of at least fifty grams of methamphetamine with intent to
distribute, appeals his custodial sentence of one hundred sixty-eight months.
Griffin contends that resentencing is warranted because the government breached
the plea agreement when it presented evidence contrary to its obligation to
recommend a downward adjustment under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), the safety valve
provision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm
Griffin’s sentence.
“A defendant’s claim that the government breached its plea agreement is
generally reviewed de novo.” United States v. Farias-Contreras, 60 F.4th 534,
541 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). “In this case, however, defense counsel did
not object to the government’s statements at sentencing.” Id. “Because [Griffin]
forfeited his claim of prosecutorial breach by failing to timely object, we
must review that claim for plain error.” Id. (citation omitted). “Under plain error
review, we may grant relief only if there has been (1) error; (2) that was plain; (3)
that affected substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affected the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Id. (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
“When we interpret the agreement and craft remedies for any breach, we
must secure the benefits promised to the defendant by the government in exchange
2

-- 2 of 3 --

for surrendering his right to trial, that is, for surrendering his right to require the
government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 542 (citation,
alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted).
Under plain error review, the government did not breach the plea
agreement.1 At sentencing, the government recommended, in accordance with the
plea agreement, that Griffin was eligible for a safety valve adjustment. Although
the government presented evidence to rebut Griffin’s request for a mitigating role
reduction, the government adhered to its obligation to recommend that Griffin was
eligible for a safety valve adjustment. Notably, Griffin’s counsel acknowledged
that the government’s evidence was limited to the mitigating role reduction and
had no bearing on the safety valve adjustment. Griffin, therefore, does not
demonstrate that the government “introduce[d] information that serve[d] no
purpose but to influence the court to give a higher sentence,” particularly as the
district court applied the safety valve adjustment in imposing a low-end Guidelines
sentence. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
1 Even under de novo review, we would reach the same conclusion.
3

-- 3 of 3 --