United States v. Deontae Griffin

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 28, 2023
• Docket: 22-50057
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 28 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50057

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00463-SVW-1 v.

DEONTAE DONALD GRIFFIN, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

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

* 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. 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 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