United States v. Gale Rachuy
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2824
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ra-chuy is a career criminal with nearly 30 fraud-related convictions over ~40 years.
- He purchased six cars by writing bad checks on accounts he knew were closed or underfunded.
- He was indicted on five counts of transporting a stolen vehicle; pled guilty to one count in exchange for a favorable sentence.
- Plea agreement promised: (1) loss calculation based only on four checks; (2) a five-year sentence; (3) no opposition to return of his property.
- District court sentenced Ra-chuy to 90 months, finding him the epitome of a career offender and rejecting the joint 60‑month recommendation.
- Ra-chuy appeals, arguing plea breach, improper loss calculation, improper opposition to property return, need for an evidentiary hearing, and misapplication of time-served credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the plea agreement by citing Ra-chuy’s history? | Ra-chuy | Ra-chuy | No plain breach; references to history justified an upward departure and they urged 60 months. |
| Was the loss calculation breached by including checks beyond the four accounts? | Ra-chuy | Ra-chuy | No breach; loss terms authorized use of other relevant checks from the same accounts. |
| Did the government breach by opposing the Rule 41(g) motion for return of property? | Ra-chuy | Ra-chuy | No breach; government did not oppose in a formal sense, merely highlighted jurisdictional limits. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing? | Ra-chuy | Ra-chuy | No abuse; motion dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, no hearing required. |
| Was Ra-chuy improperly denied § 5G1.3(b) credit for time served? | Ra-chuy | Ra-chuy | No; § 5G1.3(b) not satisfied; court properly applied § 5G1.3(c) with concurrent federal sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salazar, 453 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2006) (upholding no substantial plea breach when government supports agreed sentence)
- United States v. Winters, 695 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for sentencing claims under plea agreements)
- United States v. O'Doherty, 643 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 2011) (plain-meaning interpretation of unambiguous plea terms)
- Hart v. Terminex Int’l, 336 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2003) (judicial limits on federal jurisdiction and referral guidance)
- United States v. Gonczy, 357 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2004) (objection preservation for plea-breach review)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdictional boundaries in determining merits)
- United States v. Broadnax, 536 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2008) (elements of § 5G1.3(b) applicability to concurrent sentencing)