context: Even if the phrase were ambiguous, both Jones and the government agree that they intended Jones to be sentenced to the lowest number in the applicable Guideline range. In light of the evidence of the parties' intent before the district court at the sentence hearing, the court clearly erred when it imposed a sentence contrary to that unified intent.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 991 F.2d 1527, 1532-33
citation_a.parenthetical: reversing where the district court failed to follow the terms of the plea agreement
citation_a.sentence: See Copeland, 381 F.3d at 1105-06 (noting that we look to the parties’ intent in construing an ambiguous plea agreement); United States v. Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527, 1532-33 (11th Cir.1992) (reversing where the district court failed to follow the terms of the plea agreement); see also United States v. Vallejo, 463 Fed.Appx. 849, 852 (11th Cir.2012) (noting that, if a plea agreement was ambiguous, it would be error for a court to impose a sentence contrary to the intent of the parties to the agreement because the defendant “would not have reasonably understood ... that the Court was going to override the terms of the plea agreement it had already accepted”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 463 Fed.Appx. 849, 852
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that, if a plea agreement was ambiguous, it would be error for a court to impose a sentence contrary to the intent of the parties to the agreement because the defendant "would not have reasonably understood ... that the Court was going to override the terms of the plea agreement it had already accepted"
citation_b.sentence: See Copeland, 381 F.3d at 1105-06 (noting that we look to the parties’ intent in construing an ambiguous plea agreement); United States v. Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527, 1532-33 (11th Cir.1992) (reversing where the district court failed to follow the terms of the plea agreement); see also United States v. Vallejo, 463 Fed.Appx. 849, 852 (11th Cir.2012) (noting that, if a plea agreement was ambiguous, it would be error for a court to impose a sentence contrary to the intent of the parties to the agreement because the defendant “would not have reasonably understood ... that the Court was going to override the terms of the plea agreement it had already accepted”).