3 F.4th 1115
8th Cir.2021Background
- Andrew Sarchett pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine; plea agreement included stipulations about other incidents but he did not plead guilty to those charges.
- Plea agreement recited police searches of his girlfriend's home and her car, noting methamphetamine-manufacturing equipment and pseudoephedrine; it also referenced Sarchett having purchased 9.6 g pseudoephedrine months earlier.
- The PSR attributed the 9.6 g (home) and 7.2 g (car) pseudoephedrine to Sarchett, dramatically increasing his Guidelines offense level and driving the Guidelines range after the district court rejected the parties' career-offender stipulation.
- Sarchett objected, denying residence at the girlfriend’s home and denying presence/possession of items in the car; Probation and the government relied largely on the plea agreement and PSR.
- The district court overruled Sarchett’s objections based on the plea agreement, ordered restitution for environmental cleanup at the home, and sentenced him to 176 months; the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Sarchett's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly attributed drugs/equipment found in girlfriend's car to Sarchett | He denied being the person who fled or possessing items; plea agreement only records girlfriend's statement, not an admission by him | Plea agreement/PSR sufficiently tied him to the car; career-offender stipulation made quantity issues moot below | Reversed: plea agreement insufficient; government failed to prove connection by a preponderance; remand required |
| Whether the court properly attributed drugs/equipment found in girlfriend's home to Sarchett | He denied residing there or responsibility for items; plea language ambiguous and handwritten edits show distancing | Plea agreement and PSR tie him to the residence; can rely on stipulations | Reversed: ambiguous plea language and lack of proof mean court clearly erred in attributing home items and ordering restitution |
| Whether restitution for environmental cleanup could be ordered | He objected; no proven responsibility for the lab or cleanup costs | Relied on plea agreement stipulations to support restitution | Reversed: restitution unsupported because government did not prove his responsibility; remand to reconsider restitution |
| Whether unobjected-to PSR paragraphs can sustain the court's findings on remand | Silence to some PSR paragraphs did not amount to admission; objections and plea edits show he disputed responsibility | Court may rely on unobjected-to PSR material to support findings | Rejected as a basis to affirm here: district court did not rely on those paragraphs and appellate court requires district determination of reliability or live testimony on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Comly, 998 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 2021) (standards of review: factual findings clear error, Guidelines application de novo)
- United States v. Janis, 995 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 2021) (drug-quantity findings must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Bowers, 743 F.3d 1182 (8th Cir. 2014) (government bears burden to prove relevant-conduct drug quantity by preponderance when defendant objects)
- United States v. Lara, 690 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2012) (ambiguities in plea agreements construed against the government)
- United States v. Moore, 582 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2009) (silence in face of PSR paragraphs not necessarily admission of underlying facts)
- United States v. Pratt, 553 F.3d 1165 (8th Cir. 2009) (unobjected-to hearsay in PSR may be used only if it has sufficient indicia of reliability per USSG 6A1.3)