United States v. Pedro Pete Benevides ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 15-11895   Date Filed: 05/27/2016   Page: 1 of 5
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 15-11895
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cr-00234-GAP-KRS-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    PEDRO PETE BENEVIDES,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (May 27, 2016)
    Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 15-11895     Date Filed: 05/27/2016    Page: 2 of 5
    Pedro Benevides appeals his sentence of 108 months of imprisonment that
    was imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit bank fraud. 18 U.S.C.
    § 1349. Benevides argues that the government breached the plea agreement by
    opposing his requests for a two-level reduction based on acceptance of
    responsibility, see United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(a) (Nov.
    2014), and for a sentence at the low end of his applicable guideline range. In the
    written agreement, the government reserved the right to oppose Benevides’s
    requests if “any adverse information is received suggesting such a recommendation
    to be unwarranted,” and after he signed the agreement, Benevides falsely denied
    using other inmates’ prisoner numbers to communicate with a cohort and to
    continue his fraudulent financial activities. Because the government did not breach
    the plea agreement, we affirm Benevides’s sentence.
    On July 14, 2014, Benevides executed a written agreement to plead guilty to
    one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in exchange for the dismissal of the
    other eighteen charges relating to his use of shell companies to fraudulently obtain
    loans, mortgages, and lines of credit that exceeded $44 million. Paragraph eight of
    the agreement stated, “At the time of sentencing, and in the event that no adverse
    information is received suggesting such a recommendation to be unwarranted, the
    United States will not oppose the defendant’s request to . . . receive a two-level
    downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to USSG
    2
    Case: 15-11895     Date Filed: 05/27/2016    Page: 3 of 5
    § 3E1.1(a).” Paragraph ten of the agreement stated, “At the time of sentencing, and
    in the event that no adverse information is received suggesting such a
    recommendation to be unwarranted, the United States will not oppose the
    defendant’s request to . . . receive a sentence at the low end of the applicable
    guideline range, as calculated by the Court.” In another paragraph entitled
    Sentencing Information, the government “reserve[d] its right and obligation to
    report to the Court and the United States Probation Office all information
    concerning [Benevides’s] background, character, and conduct . . ., to provide
    relevant factual information, including the totality of [his] criminal activities,” and
    “to make any recommendations it deems appropriate regarding the disposition of
    [Benevides’s] case, subject to any limitations set forth” in the agreement.
    During an interview on September 16, 2014, Benevides falsely denied that
    he had continued to engage in fraudulent real estate activities, but eventually he
    confessed after being presented with evidence of his misdeeds. Federal agents had
    amassed evidence that, after Benevides’s arrest but before he signed the plea
    agreement, he used other inmates’ prisoner inmate numbers to make telephone
    calls to solicit investors in a company that he controlled through a straw owner.
    After signing the plea agreement, Benevides continued to make telephone calls to
    solicit investors and to discuss other financial transactions. In addition, Benevides
    3
    Case: 15-11895     Date Filed: 05/27/2016     Page: 4 of 5
    began mailing letters in other inmates’ names to prospective investors and to a
    woman whose assistance he sought in his fraudulent activities.
    We review de novo whether the government breached the plea agreement.
    United States v. Thomas, 
    487 F.3d 1358
    , 1360 (11th Cir. 2007). “Whether the
    government violated the agreement is judged according to the defendant’s
    reasonable understanding of the agreement when he entered the plea.” 
    Id. “[W]e interpret
    the terms of the plea agreement based on objective standards.” 
    Id. The government
    did not breach the plea agreement. The government was
    relieved of its obligation to stand mute about Benevides’s request for a two-level
    reduction because his conduct was inconsistent with an acceptance of
    responsibility. See generally United States v. Mahique, 
    150 F.3d 1330
    , 1332 (11th
    Cir. 1998) (government did not breach its agreement not to oppose a reduction
    based on the acceptance of responsibility when the defendant failed to make a full
    and accurate disclosure of his relevant conduct). After lying to federal agents,
    Benevides was not entitled to a “reduction [that] is intended to reward . . .
    contrition for . . . wrongdoing and . . . a desire to reform . . . conduct,” United
    States v. Williams, 
    627 F.3d 839
    , 844 (11th Cir. 2010). And Benevides’s
    deceptiveness “suggest[ed] [that] a recommendation for [a sentence at the low end
    of his sentencing range was] unwarranted.” Benevides’s misconduct evidenced that
    a low-end sentence would not “promote respect for the law” or “provide adequate
    4
    Case: 15-11895    Date Filed: 05/27/2016   Page: 5 of 5
    deterrence” against or “protect the public” from future similar crimes. See 18
    U.S.C. § 3553(a). The actions of the government were consistent with the terms of
    the plea agreement.
    We AFFIRM Benevides’s sentence.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-11895

Judges: Wilson, Pryor, Rosenbaum

Filed Date: 5/27/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024