Background
Shalonda Faison was convicted of conspiracy to make false statements during the purchase of firearms, making false statements during the purchase of firearms, and selling or transferring firearms to a prohibited person. She was sentenced to twenty-eight months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. Faison appealed, arguing the sentence violated her binding plea agreement which she interpreted as limiting her total sentence to twenty-eight months with no supervised release.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the claim for plain error since the objection was not preserved. It noted that while the word sentence can include supervised release, the agreement was ambiguous. The court looked to extrinsic evidence which showed the parties intended the district court to re-impose the sentence previously vacated, which included supervised release. The court concluded that the district court’s interpretation was not obviously wrong enough to constitute plain error.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that plea agreements regarding sentence length must be carefully drafted to avoid ambiguity, particularly concerning supervised release. It also confirms that extrinsic evidence of intent can resolve ambiguities in plea agreements to prevent plain error findings.