Joseph Anthony Cano Bonilla pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine under a written plea agreement. As part of that deal, the government promised to remain silent regarding the purity of the drugs, and both sides agreed that the advisory sentencing guideline range would be between 97 and 121 months. However, the presentence investigation report calculated a higher range of 151 to 188 months by treating the 8,854 grams of seized material as a pure substance. At the sentencing hearing, the government supported the higher calculation, arguing for a downward variance rather than objecting to the guidelines themselves. The district court adopted the higher calculation and sentenced Bonilla to 151 months. Bonilla appealed, and the government agreed that its own conduct at sentencing violated the plea deal.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo to determine if the government breached the plea agreement. The court reaffirmed the legal principle that a government breaches a plea agreement when it fails to perform the promises on which the plea was based. In this instance, the government explicitly stated that the guidelines were correct and that the purity and lab report were accurate, effectively arguing for a higher sentence based on the purity of the methamphetamine. This action directly contradicted the government's specific promise to remain silent on that issue. The court found that the government's position was clearly right as a matter of law, leaving no substantial question regarding the outcome. Because Bonilla preserved his objection to this breach at the sentencing hearing, the court determined that automatic reversal was warranted.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing. The resentencing must occur in accordance with the original plea agreement, meaning the government cannot argue for a higher sentence based on drug purity. Additionally, the resentencing must be conducted before a different judge. The appellate court denied the parties' request to strike the chemical analysis report from the record or order an amended presentence investigation report, directing them to seek those specific procedural remedies directly from the district court on remand.