United States v. Burden
860 F.3d 45
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Kelvin Burden and Jermaine Buchanan were convicted in 2003 of RICO, VCAR (violent crimes in aid of racketeering), and large‑scale cocaine distribution; both received life imprisonment.
- After unsuccessful direct appeals, each filed § 2255 habeas petitions alleging Brady violations; in 2014 each entered a "Stipulation for Resentencing" with the government withdrawing certain habeas claims in exchange for a binding incarceration range of 262–365 months.
- Each stipulation contained a broad appeal waiver covering "any alleged error in connection with the re‑sentencing itself," but the stipulations were silent about supervised release.
- The district court accepted the stipulations, resentenced both to 365 months’ imprisonment, and — after explaining the sentence was driven by the seriousness of the offenses — imposed life terms of supervised release (well above the 5‑year Guidelines range).
- Neither defendant objected at sentencing to the supervised‑release terms; both appealed. The government contended the appeal waivers barred the appeals; defendants challenged (1) the court’s failure to advise them of supervised‑release exposure before accepting stipulations and (2) the adequacy of the district court’s explanation for imposing life supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of appeal waivers | Waivers were not knowing/voluntary due to lack of advice about supervised release; or breached because total sentence exceeded 365 months | Government: waivers presumptively enforceable; stipulations bound only incarceration term | Waivers enforceable; plain‑error review applies to unraised Rule‑11‑like claims but defendants failed to show prejudice |
| Scope of waivers re: supervised release | Waivers should be construed to allow challenges to supervised release because stipulations silent on it | Government: waiver language covers "any alleged error in connection with the re‑sentencing itself" broadly | Waivers construed narrowly (against gov’t) to cover only incarceration challenges; supervised‑release challenges not waived |
| Failure to advise defendants they faced supervised release before accepting stipulations | Defendants: district court should have informed them (Rule 11‑like duty); lack of advice undermines knowing/voluntary waiver | Government: no Rule 11 obligation; even if error, not plain and not shown to have affected decision | Court assumed possible duty but found any error not plain; defendants did not show they would have declined stipulations, so no relief |
| Procedural reasonableness of life supervised release | Defendants: court failed adequately to explain variance to lifetime supervised release; relied on retribution/seriousness of offense | Government: overall sentencing explanation sufficed; seriousness is relevant | VACATED supervised‑release terms and REMANDED for resentencing on supervised release: court erred (plain error) by basing lifetime supervised release on retribution, which §3583(c) and caselaw prohibit |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arevalo, 628 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (appeal waivers presumptively enforceable)
- United States v. Oladimeji, 463 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2006) (appeal waiver ambiguous as to restitution and construed narrowly)
- United States v. Cunningham, 292 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2002) (waiver did not bar challenge to supervised release when plea silent on it)
- United States v. Granik, 386 F.3d 404 (2d Cir. 2004) (procedural safeguards and bargaining context inform waiver enforcement)
- United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2006) (distinguishing consideration of seriousness for revocation/modification of supervised release from imposing supervised release)
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (retribution is not a permissible basis for supervised release)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain‑error standard applies to Rule 11 errors raised for first time on appeal)