NanoTech Entertainment Inc (NTEK)

[theiceman13]

9
IV. The Plea Agreement Was Not Ambiguous As To Loss
Finally, defendant asserts that the plea agreement’s terms were ambiguous about what losses could be included, and therefore his appellate waiver is unenforceable. But the parties stipulated in the plea agreement that the government could argue for a loss amount of up to $1,589,069, while defendant could argue for a loss as low as $0. CR 129 at 6. As noted above, the agreement contained no limitation as to which losses could be counted, or what constituted relevant conduct.
Id. Cf. United States v. Martinez
, 77 F.3d 332, 333 (9th Cir. 1996) (parties stipulated in the plea agreement to limit relevant conduct to a specific amount). The fact that the parties did not reach a stipulation as to those matters does not make the agreement ambiguous, nor does it allow defendant to ask this Court to impose such a limitation after the fact.

I would disagree here. If the lack of the stipulation resulted in a violation of the law w/ regards to the damages it indeed was ambiguous. Not only ambiguous, but deceitful. If there could be no legal damages to Global VR but only to the person(s) the drives were sold to, then the $1.5m figure was ridiculous in the first place. This pleading looks very weak to me.