United States v. Christopher Erwin
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16425
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Erwin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone with a plea agreement including an appellate waiver if sentence falls within a 39 total offense level range.
- The Government agreed not to pursue further charges and to seek a downward departure under § 5K1.1 for substantial cooperation.
- At sentencing, the court, with government motion, departed from offense level 39 to 34, yielding a within-Guidelines sentence of 151–188 months (188 months actually imposed).
- Erwin appealed, arguing the waiver barred review since his sentence was within the statutory maximum and below the applicable Guidelines range.
- The Government argued for remand with de novo resentencing under specific performance for the breach; Erwin argued forfeiture of that remedy.
- The court vacated the judgment, remanded for de novo resentencing before a different judge, and excused the Government from its § 5K1.1 departure obligation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Erwin breach the plea agreement by appealing? | Erwin breached the waiver by appealing the sentence. | Waiver barred any appeal regardless of outcome; no breach by appealing. | Yes; Erwin breached the plea agreement by appealing. |
| What remedy is appropriate for breach—specific performance via de novo resentencing? | Remedy should restore the bargain by permitting de novo resentencing with government relief from § 5K1.1 motion. | Remedial options include withdrawal or other remedies, but the Government seeks to maintain benefits. | Specific performance with de novo resentencing is appropriate. |
| Does the cross-appeal rule bar de novo resentencing when the Government did not cross-appeal? | Cross-appeal rule should not bar relief because the remedy is de novo resentencing under § 2106. | Cross-appeal rule would limit the Government; Greenlaw does not control; jurisdictional issues arise. | Cross-appeal rule does not bar de novo resentencing here. |
| What authority supports granting de novo resentencing under § 2106? | § 2106 authorizes modifying or remanding for just proceedings to reflect changed circumstances, including breach. | No authority to grant such relief without cross-appeal; may be improper expansion of power. | § 2106 provides authority to vacate and remand for de novo resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 510 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2007) (breach of plea agreement standard and remedies)
- Castro, 704 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2013) (plea agreements analyzed under contract standards; breach review de novo)
- Nolan-Cooper, 155 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 1998) (remand for resentencing when government breach; guide for remedies)
- Swint, 223 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2000) (remedies when government seeks to withdraw downward departure)
- Khattak, 273 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2001) (validity/scope of appellate waivers; standards of review)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (S. Ct. 2008) (cross-appeal considerations and notice in sentencing context)
- Harvey, 2 F.3d 1318 (3d Cir. 1993) (cross-appeal limitations when government could have challenged sentencing error)
- Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (1987) (breach of plea agreements can remove double jeopardy protections)