United States v. Gerardo Farias-Contreras

Good Law
104 F.4th 22
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 3, 202421-30055California8,380 words

Opinion

Opinion

facts in the presentence report does not constitute a per se breach. Concurring, Judge Gould, joined by Judges Rawlinson and Desai, joined the majority in full. He wrote separately to add that the conclusion that there was error not only has the fundamental principles of contract law supporting it but also the constitutional protections given to plea bargains. Concurring in the judgment, Judge Bennett, joined by Judges Miller, Bress, and Bumatay, agreed with the majority that the court should affirm and that no categorical rule USA V. FARIAS-CONTRERAS

prohibits the government from presenting information already known to the court. He disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the government implicitly breached the plea agreement.

COUNSEL

Scott A.C. Meisler (argued), Trial Attorney, Appellate Section, Criminal Division; Lisa H. Miller, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Nicole M. Argentieri, Acting Assistant Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Caitlin A. Baunsgard, Russell E. Smoot, Ian Garriques, David M. Herzog, and Brian M. Donovan, Assistant United States Attorneys; Vanessa R. Waldref, United States Attorney; United…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.