United States v. Helm
58f4th75
| 2d Cir. | 2023Background
- In a DEA reverse-sting, Helm agreed to pick up 50 "pieces" of contraband (10 first, then 40 more); he took a duffel bag containing 10 kg of fake cocaine plus 530 g of real cocaine and was arrested. He told agents he thought he was picking up marijuana or money.
- Helm pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 kg of marijuana. The plea agreement preserved the government’s ability to present sentencing information and stated Helm had consulted counsel about relevant-conduct Guidelines.
- At the change-of-plea hearing the government accepted, for purposes of the plea, that Helm believed the objective was marijuana, but explicitly reserved the right to contest relevant conduct (including cocaine) at sentencing.
- The PSR attributed 50 kg of cocaine to Helm under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). The district court adopted that view and sentenced Helm to 36 months’ imprisonment (below the Guidelines range).
- On appeal Helm argued (1) the government breached the plea agreement by raising cocaine at sentencing, (2) the government was judicially estopped from doing so, and (3) § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) requires scienter as to drug type for nonpossessory conduct. The Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Helm) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by arguing the 50 kg of cocaine at sentencing | Agreement explicitly allowed unlimited sentencing information; government reserved cocaine issue at plea; no breach | Plea to marijuana implicitly promised government would not raise cocaine at sentencing; breach vitiated consideration | No breach: plea text and parties’ conduct show defendant had no reasonable expectation government would not raise cocaine; reviewed for plain error and rejected |
| Whether judicial estoppel barred the government from raising cocaine at sentencing | No inconsistency: government accepted a marijuana factual basis for plea while expressly reserving sentencing arguments; court did not adopt a contrary position | Government took an inconsistent position and gained unfair advantage by later asserting cocaine at sentencing | No estoppel: statements are reconcilable; court never adopted a contrary factual position; no unfair advantage shown |
| Whether Guideline § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) requires knowledge of drug type for nonpossessory "direct, personal involvement" | § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) contains no scienter; commentary and precedent treat direct personal involvement as sufficient without knowledge of specific drug type | Helm lacked knowledge it was cocaine and did not possess 50 kg; court should not attribute full 50 kg without scienter | Held: no scienter requirement for drug type under § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) where defendant is directly and personally involved; district court properly included the 50 kg as relevant conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chalarca, 95 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 1996) (defendant accountable for quantities with which he had direct, personal involvement)
- United States v. Obi, 947 F.2d 1031 (2d Cir. 1991) (no scienter required as to drug type when defendant is in direct possession)
- United States v. Andino, 627 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2010) (government need not prove scienter as to drug type/quantity when defendant personally and directly participates in a drug transaction)
- United States v. Negron, 967 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1992) (acts of others under §1B1.3(a)(1)(B) require reasonable foreseeability and findings as to knowledge)
- United States v. Wilson, 920 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2019) (plea-agreement interpretation governed by contract principles; construed against government)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel principles require inconsistent positions and unfair advantage to apply)