"General principles of contract law define the government's obligations under the agreement, looking to the express language and construing any ambiguities against the government as the drafter of the agreement." United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1195 (10th Cir. 2003). "[I]f the pleadings reveal a factual dispute on the issue of breach of a plea agreement, the district court must hold a hearing to resolve the factual issues."
"General principles of contract law define the government's obligations under the [plea] agreement, looking to the express language and construing any ambiguities against the government as the drafter of the agreement." United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1195 (10th Cir. 2003). "[I]f the pleadings reveal a factual dispute on the issue of breach of a plea agreement, the district court must hold a hearing to resolve the factual issues."
dge must find that there has been a substantial breach," but considering that judicial finding as a procedural barrier only to the final act of sentencing, not to the government's attempts to avoid the agreement);United States v. Lezine, 166 F.3d 895, 899-903 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that "[w]hen the prosecution seeks to escape an obligation under a plea agreement on the grounds that the defendant has failed to meet some precondition, the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing," but finding no due process violation where that hearing occurred on a motion filed after the government signaled its intent to breach);United States v. Cox, 985 F.2d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that "neither [a defendant] nor the government may unilaterally declare the plea agreement void; only the court has that authority," but taking no other position on the timing of such a determination except to note that the issue must be raised at some point during the district court proceedings); but see United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1196 (10th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he government may not unilaterally declare a breach of a plea agreement; a court must hold a hearing and make a finding that the defendant breached the agreement before the government is released from its obligations under the agreement."). In other words, nothing about the rule in four of those five circuits is inconsistent with our circuit's ratification rule, which Judge Sanchez would reverse.
We remind the government that it "may not unilaterally declare a breach of a plea agreement; a court must hold a hearing and make a finding that the defendant breached the agreement before the government is released from its obligations under the agreement." United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1196 (10th Cir. 2003). In this case, the government argued that Hill obstructed justice and thereby had not continued to manifest acceptance of responsibility.
"General principles of contract law define the government's obligations under the agreement, looking to the express language and construing any ambiguities against the government as the drafter of the agreement." United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1195 (10th Cir. 2003). Generally, whether the government has breached a plea agreement is a question of law which we review de novo.
General principles of contract law govern the prosecution's obligations under a plea agreement. See United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1195 (10th Cir. 2003). We examine the express language of the agreement to identify both the nature of the government's promise and the defendant's reasonable understanding of this promise at the time of the entry of the guilty plea.
In order to determine whether a breach has occurred, we "1) examine the nature of the promise; and 2) evaluate the promise in light of the defendant's reasonable understanding of the promise at the time of the guilty plea." United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1195-96 (10th Cir. 2003). "General principles of contract law define the government's obligations under the agreement, looking to the express language and construing any ambiguities against the government as the drafter of the agreement."
The semantics are of no import here because the district court failed to make either a ruling or a finding. We have often held it is insufficient to merely adopt the factual findings and guideline applications of the PSIR. United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1198 (10th Cir. 2003) (a district court may not satisfy its obligations under USSG ยง 6A1.3(b) "by simply adopting the presentence report as its finding."); United States v. Farnsworth, 92 F.3d 1001, 1011 (10th Cir. 1996) (same).
Id. at 1213. United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1196 (10th Cir. 2003). 1. Sixth Amendment
In this circuit, a defendant has a right to "a judicial determination, based on adequate evidence, of a defendant's breach of a plea bargaining agreement." United States v. Calabrese, 645 F.2d 1379, 1390 (10th Cir. 1981); accord United States v. Cudjoe, 534 F.3d 1349, 1354 (10th Cir. 2008): United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1196 (10th Cir. 2003). Further, "[i]f the pleadings reveal a factual dispute on the issue of breach, the district court must hold a hearing to resolve the factual issues."