United States v. Andrew Anthony Mote

97 F.3d 1462 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Anthony MOTE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-30372. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 19, 1996. * Decided Sept. 13, 1996. Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Andrew Anthony Mote appeals his 21-month sentence following a guilty plea to one count of manufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Mote contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for resentencing because the government breached the plea agreement when it failed to move for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, United States v. Meyers, 32 F.3d 411, 413 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm. 3 "A plea agreement is contractual in nature and is subject to contract law standards." United States v. Floyd, 1 F.3d…