Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SHALONDA FAISON

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 Docket: 2:22-cr-00105-RAH-JTA-2 The eleventh-circuit affirmed Shalonda Faison’s sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release, rejecting her claim that the district court breached a binding plea agreement. The court applied the plain error standard of review because Faison failed to object to the sentencing terms in the district court. Under this standard, an unpreserved error is reversible only if it is clear or obvious and affects substantial rights. The court analyzed whether the plea agreement provision stating “a sentence of 28 months is the appropriate disposition” was breached by including supervised release. While acknowledging that “sentence” can broadly encompass both imprisonment and supervised release, the court found the term ambiguous in this context. Consequently, the court looked to extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent, noting that the district court, Faison’s counsel, and the government all understood the agreement as a directive to reimpose the specific sentence previously vacated by this court in 2024, which included supervised release. Because the district court’s interpretation was supported by this extrinsic evidence and was not “clearly” or “obviously” wrong, the court concluded that no plain error occurred. The practical consequence is that Faison’s conviction and sentence remain in effect as imposed by the district court. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.