United States v. Jonathan Dean , 459 F. App'x 338 ( 2012 )

Case: 11-40531 Document: 00511731366 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 20, 2012
No. 11-40531
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JONATHAN RAY DEAN,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CR-63-1
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jonathan Ray Dean pleaded guilty of possession with intent to distribute
cocaine. He was sentenced as a career offender to a 188-month term of
imprisonment and to a four-year period of supervised release. Dean contends
that the Government breached its plea agreement with him because the
probation officer determined his base offense level on the basis of the career
offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and not under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, as the
parties had stipulated.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 11-40531 Document: 00511731366 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2012
No. 11-40531
We review a claim of breach of a plea agreement de novo. United States
v. Pizzolato, 655 F.3d 403, 409 (5th Cir. 2011). Applying general principles of
contract law, we must determine whether the Government’s conduct is
consistent with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement. Id.By its terms, the plea agreement did not bind the probation officer or the
district court, and Dean was admonished at the rearraignment that the
stipulation was not binding on the district court. Dean’s contrary understanding
was not reasonable. See id.; see also United States v. Talbert, 501 F.3d 449, 453
(5th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he United States Probation Office is a branch of the federal
judiciary and ‘an investigatory and supervisory arm’ of the sentencing court.”
(citation omitted)); United States v. Woods, 907 F.2d 1540, 1543-44 (5th Cir.
1990). The judgment is AFFIRMED.
The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal, based on Dean’s appeal
waiver, or for summary affirmance or an extension of time to file its brief is
DENIED. See United States v. Roberts, 624 F.3d 241, 244 (5th Cir. 2010).
2