Opinion
20-6108
07-07-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD EARL MCCULLOUGH, Defendant-Appellant.
Raymond C. Tarlton, TARLTON POLK PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 28, 2021.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00199-BO-1).
Raymond C. Tarlton, TARLTON POLK PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Earl McCullough appeals his 120-month sentence following his guilty plea to engaging in unlawful monetary transactions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. McCullough argues that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to inform the district court of the full extent of his cooperation. We affirm.
"Plea agreements are grounded in contract law, and as with any contract, each party is entitled to receive the benefit of his bargain." United States v. Edgell, 914 F.3d 281, 287 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because McCullough did not challenge the Government's purported breach of the plea agreement in the district court, we review only for plain error. Id. at 286. "Under that standard, [McCullough] must show that the [G]overnment plainly breached its plea agreement with him and that the breach both affected his substantial rights and called into question the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id. at 286-87. McCullough has not identified any information that the Government failed to disclose that may have affected the district court's sentencing decision, nor has he shown that the Government's alleged failure to disclose violated his substantial rights, so he has not established plain error.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED