United States v. Aracely Gaona
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20787
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Gaona participated in a large drug-money laundering conspiracy with her brothers and others; she wired funds and transported proceeds in support of the scheme.
- An April 13, 2010 grand jury returned an eight-count indictment charging drug conspiracy, cocaine distribution, and money laundering; Gaona was in the money-laundering group.
- Gaona pleaded guilty to Count Eight (money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956) under a plea agreement signed January 6, 2012, which included Paragraph 21 about sentencing recommendations.
- Paragraph 21 stated the government would not make a specific sentencing recommendation but could present all facts to the court.
- At the April 20, 2012 sentencing, the government clarified its position, and defense counsel asserted the clarification breached the plea agreement.
- The district court continued sentencing to April 23, Gaona chose to proceed with sentencing, and she was ultimately sentenced to 18 months in prison with related terms; she appealed claiming government breach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of the breach challenge? | Gaona argues breach supports appeal. | Government asserts waiver because Gaona chose to proceed. | Waived; court affirmed without reaching merits. |
| Merits of breach claim? | Gaona would prevail if breach occurred. | Waiver forecloses merits review. | Not reached due to waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wesley, 422 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2005) (waiver vs. forfeiture distinction; knowing relinquishment of rights)
- United States v. Diaz-Jimenez, 622 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2010) (breach of plea agreement during sentencing; immediate consequences)
- United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009) (forfeiture vs. waiver; post-sentencing objections not free review)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (remedies for prosecutor’s plea breach include specific performance or withdrawal)
- United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2005) (strictly defined waiver/forfeiture standards; strategic choices impact review)