United States v. Diere DeJournett
817 F.3d 479
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute >=5 kg of cocaine and money laundering; plea agreement contained no cooperation clause.
- Defendant asked the district court to unseal the plea agreement on PACER; the court denied the request based on a blanket policy limiting access to parties and court staff, stating only, “The Court has reasons to do what it’s done.”
- The presentence report added two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) because the instant offense was committed while defendant was serving a conditionally suspended 2011 OVI sentence that required him to “obey [the] laws.”
- Defendant objected to the two points, arguing the government had not shown that his suspended sentence was the functional equivalent of unsupervised probation; the district court overruled the objection relying on Harris v. United States.
- District court sentenced defendant to the statutory mandatory minimum of 240 months; defendant appealed both the criminal-history ruling and the district court’s sealing of the plea agreement.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentencing decision on the Guidelines issue but vacated the seal order and remanded for on-the-record, case-specific findings justifying nondisclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conditionally suspended sentence requiring the offender to “obey the laws” counts as a “criminal justice sentence” for § 4A1.1(d) | The government (plaintiff) argued such a conditional suspension is the functional equivalent of probation and therefore countable under § 4A1.1(d) | Defendant argued the government failed to prove the suspended sentence was the functional equivalent of unsupervised probation as required by precedent (Gay/Harris) | Court held Ohio law makes community-control sanctions the functional equivalent of probation and that the statutory condition to “obey the laws” renders the prior sentence a countable criminal justice sentence; affirmed two added points and the sentence |
| Whether the district court’s blanket policy sealing plea agreements without case-specific findings violated the First Amendment and common-law right of access | The government defended the court’s policy as rationally related to privacy interests and did not show the district court made on-the-record, narrowly tailored findings | Defendant argued the public has a constitutional and common-law right to access plea agreements and the court’s blanket sealing order lacked the required factual findings | Court held plea agreements are judicial records entitled to First Amendment and common-law access; the district court’s blanket policy was inadequate, so the sealing order was vacated and the case remanded for on-the-record, case-specific findings to justify nondisclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 56 F.3d 719 (6th Cir. 1995) (conditional discharge is the functional equivalent of unsupervised probation for sentencing purposes)
- Harris v. United States, 204 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2000) (treating PNC conditional discharges as equivalent to unsupervised probation)
- United States v. Rollins, 378 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2004) (application of § 4A1.1(d) to conditional discharges)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (First Amendment right of public access to criminal trials)
- Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (standards for attachment of the public-access right)
- Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (closure may be ordered only for an overriding interest with specific findings narrowly tailored)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (existence and scope of the common-law right of access to judicial records)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983) (district court discretion to deny access must be guided by standards)
- Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (First Amendment protection applies to plea agreements)
- Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) (plea agreements subject to public-access principles)
- United States v. Kooistra, 796 F.2d 1390 (11th Cir. 1986) (retaining jurisdiction and remanding so required sealing findings may be entered)