527 F. App'x 406
6th Cir.2013Background
- Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess a document-making implement under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea; a concurrent sentence against state terms was sought under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b).
- Defendant and associate Hicks committed credit-card thefts and fraud to obtain goods, with related jewelry purchases and other crimes in TN and IL prior to federal indictment.
- State sentences in Tennessee (two six-year terms) and Illinois (two three-year terms) were concurrent; federal indictment followed while in custody.
- Plea agreement set a guidelines range of 30–37 months and reserved the right to argue about 5G1.3(b) concurrent treatment with state sentences.
- At sentencing, the district court initially considered 5G1.3(b) but declined to apply it based on the original plea calculation; government later offered a higher range in supplemental briefing.
- The government’s supplemental brief suggested including Romeoville and Hendersonville offenses as relevant conduct, which would yield a higher offense level and potentially concurrent treatment under 5G1.3(b). The district court did not adopt this position and sentenced 36 months consecutive; Defendant appealed alleging government breach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the plea agreement? | Hicks argues the government breached by proposing a higher range in supplemental briefing. | Defendant contends the breach allowed remedial options such as rescission or specific performance. | Yes; government breach remediable, case remanded for remedies. |
| Are remedies limited to rescission or specific performance in this context? | Remedies should align with breach and allow withdrawal or renegotiation. | Courts can grant rescission or specific performance, with rescission permitting withdrawal. | Remedies limited to rescission or specific performance; district court must permit withdrawal if rescission is chosen. |
| Should § 5G1.3(b) be applied given the breach and plea terms? | Following the breach, § 5G1.3(b) could govern concurrent sentence and credit for time served. | District court believed it was bound by the original plea and concluded § 5G1.3(b) did not apply. | Court may apply § 5G1.3(b); remand to reconsider its application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 2009) (remedies for government breach include rescission or specific performance)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court 1971) (plea bargains and promises warrant judicial relief in breach situations)
- United States v. Mandell, 905 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1990) (district court bound by Rule 11 plea; cannot rewrite agreement)
- United States v. Skidmore, 998 F.2d 372 (6th Cir. 1993) (breach remedies and limits on district court authority)
- Barnes v. United States, 278 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2002) (government breach may lead to resentencing with terms))
- Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (Supreme Court 1984) (plea bargains as contracts; breach remedies limited)
- United States v. Hodge, 306 F. App’x 910 (6th Cir. 2009) (plea bargains and remedial options under Rule 11)