United States v. Dailey , 42 F. App'x 665 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                             No. 01-4901
    DESMOND SENTELL DAILEY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.
    (CR-00-42)
    Submitted: June 26, 2002
    Decided: August 23, 2002
    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Haakon Thorsen, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen
    C. F. Shappert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                      UNITED STATES v. DAILEY
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Desmond Dailey appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed
    following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to possess with
    intent to distribute crack cocaine and one count of possession with
    intent to distribute crack cocaine, 
    21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 846
    (West 1999 & Supp. 2002). Dailey claims that the Government
    breached an oral plea agreement by failing to administer a polygraph
    test to confirm his limited role in the conspiracy.
    Because he did not object below, Dailey’s claim is reviewed for
    plain error only. United States v. McQueen, 
    108 F.3d 64
    , 65-66 (4th
    Cir. 1997). Although not favored, oral plea agreements are enforce-
    able. United States v. Iaquinta, 
    719 F.2d 83
    , 84 n.2 (4th Cir. 1983).
    A government promise that is part of the inducement for a guilty plea
    must be fulfilled. Santobello v. New York, 
    404 U.S. 257
    , 262 (1971).
    The government’s breach of such a promise violates due process.
    United States v. Martin, 
    25 F.3d 211
    , 217 (4th Cir. 1994). The inter-
    pretation of a plea agreement is "guided by contract law, and parties
    to the agreement should receive the benefit of their bargain."
    McQueen, 
    108 F.3d at 66
    . In McQueen, the transcript of the guilty
    plea hearing established that the government had made an oral prom-
    ise to recommend that the defendant receive a sentence of no more
    than 63 months and to recommend that he receive a two-level adjust-
    ment for acceptance of responsibility. At sentencing, the government
    failed to mention the terms of the oral plea agreement. We found that
    the government’s breach constituted plain error requiring that McQu-
    een’s sentence be vacated and the case remanded for specific perfor-
    mance of the agreement. 
    Id. at 65
    .
    Here, by contrast, we find no evidence in the record to support Dai-
    ley’s claim that his guilty plea was induced by the Government’s
    promise to administer a polygraph. Although a polygraph examina-
    tion was mentioned at Dailey’s sentencing hearing, it was not in the
    context of an agreement or promise to induce his guilty plea. Accord-
    ingly, we conclude that Dailey cannot show a breach of any plea
    agreement and therefore affirm his sentence. We dispense with oral
    UNITED STATES v. DAILEY                    3
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4901

Citation Numbers: 42 F. App'x 665

Judges: Gregory, Per Curiam, Wilkins, Williams

Filed Date: 8/23/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023