United States v. Carlo Castro, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 442

Castro, a high-ranking Philadelphia Police Department official, was indicted on three extortion schemes; he was convicted on Count Three (false statement to FBI), acquitted on Count Ten (extortionate means), and the jury hung on eight counts.
To avoid retrial, Castro pled guilty to Count Nine (conspiracy to commit extortion) with a broad appellate-waiver in the plea agreement; the government dismissed remaining charges.
At sentencing, the parties agreed the combined Count Three and Count Nine convictions yielded a 30–37 month range, with a government motion for a 3-level downward departure under § 3E1.1(b) that the district court sua sponte rejected, producing a higher range.
The district court imposed 60 months on Count Nine (concurrent with 18 months on Count Three), plus a fine and supervised release; the calculation included an impermissible inclusion of Count Three in offense-level computation.
Castro argued: (i) insufficiency of evidence for the Count Three false-statement conviction, (ii) district court lacked authority to deny the government's removal for acceptance of responsibility, and (iii) the sentence was procedurally/substantively unreasonable given good-works evidence.
The court concluded the appellate waiver encompassed the sufficiency challenge and the § 3E1.1(b) issue, but found a miscarriage of justice requiring reversal on Count Three and remand for resentencing on Count Nine only.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence for Count Three?	Castro contends evidence failed to show a false statement.	Castro argues the statement was literally true since funds came from the FBI sting, not Encarnacion.	Conviction on Count Three reversed due to lack of true falsity.
Did the district court have power to deny the extra one-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(b)?	Castro asserts § 3E1.1(b) is mandatory for the government and the court lacks discretion to deny.	Castro argues the waiver covers this issue and no miscarriage of justice would occur enforcing it.	Waiver applied; denial of the requested additional reduction affirmed as barred by waiver.
Was Castro's 60-month sentence reasonable given the guideline range and record?	Castro argues the sentence is procedurally/substantively unreasonable and not adequately explained.	Government contends the sentence is justified and properly explained.	Remand required due to erroneous guideline calculation stemming from Count Three inclusion; cannot meaningfully review reasonableness at this stage.

Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1973) (literal-truth defense limits conviction for false statements)
Serafini v. United States, 167 F.3d 812 (3d Cir. 1999) (statements under false declarations statute analyzed with Bronston)
Moyer v. United States, 674 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2012) (elements of 18 U.S.C. §1001 established)
Khattak v. United States, 273 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2001) (appellate waivers reviewed for knowing, voluntary scope and miscarriage of justice)
United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (guidelines calculation impacts reasonableness review)