United States v. Almonte-Nunez
771 F.3d 84
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Edwin Omar Almonte-Nuñez pled guilty to robbery (count 1), brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (count 2), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (count 3) after a violent robbery that injured an elderly victim, resulting in loss of an eye.
- Plea agreement stipulated to an offense level of 25 and barred either party from arguing for further offense-level adjustments; parties agreed as to sentencing recommendations for counts 1–3 (84 months for count 2 to run consecutively); CHC was left open.
- The probation officer’s amended PSI recommended two enhancements (threat of death and restraint) that would raise the offense level; the court indicated inclination to apply them.
- At sentencing the court rejected the threat-of-death enhancement (double counting with §924(c) charge) but accepted the two-level restraint enhancement, raising the total offense level to 27 and producing a GSR of 130–162 months.
- The district court imposed concurrent 150-month terms on counts 1 and 3 and the agreed 84-month consecutive term on count 2; defendant appealed alleging government breach of the plea agreement and that the 150-month sentence on count 3 exceeded the statutory maximum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the waiver-of-appeal clause bar review? | Waiver should apply because court retained sentencing discretion and agreement didn’t lock a GSR. | Waiver covers only sentences "in accordance with" the Agreement (offense level 25); 150 months exceeded the Agreement’s contemplated GSR, so waiver no bar. | Court: waiver did not bar review—Agreement fixed offense level 25 so imposed 150 months was not "in accordance with" the recommendation. |
| Did the government breach the plea agreement by supporting guideline adjustments? | Government breached by indicating factual basis for restraint enhancement and by advocacy emphasizing aggravating facts. | Government says AUSA merely answered court questions and provided accurate facts; also repeatedly said it stood by the Agreement and recommended 137 months (high end under lvl 25). | Court: No breach. Prosecutor fulfilled duty to inform court and did not advocate for the enhancement; totality of circumstances shows no subversion of the Agreement. |
| Was the 150-month concurrent sentence on count 3 lawful given §922(g)(1)’s statutory maximum? | Defendant: 150 months on count 3 exceeds the 10-year statutory maximum for §922(g)(1). | Government: No plain error because the excessive sentence did not affect defendant’s overall incarceration (concurrent identical term on count 1). | Court: Plain and obvious error; sentence on count 3 exceeds statutory max, must be modified to 120 months on remand despite concurrency. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Puckett, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (sets plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Clark, 55 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1995) (example of government undercutting plea agreement)
- United States v. Gonczy, 357 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2004) (prosecutor’s duty to provide accurate information to sentencing court)
- United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1995) (Guidelines cannot override statutory maximums)
- United States v. Barnes, 251 F.3d 251 (1st Cir. 2001) (remand to correct an illegal sentence)