United States v. Javier Munoz
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11671
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Munoz pled guilty in 2007 to distributing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.
- He fled to Mexico before sentencing and was extradited back in 2012 for sentencing.
- The plea agreement promised the government would recommend the minimum of the guideline range and set a base level of 30.
- PSR later recommended a base level of 32 with additional upward adjustments, yielding a 210–262 month range.
- The district court adopted the higher base level and sentenced Munoz to 181 months, below range.
- On appeal, Munoz argued the government breached the plea by urging a higher base level and mid-range sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the plea by arguing base 32 and mid-range sentencing? | Munoz asserts breach due to depart from agreed base and range. | Munoz contends the government remains bound to the最低 base and bottom of range. | No; Munoz breached by fleeing, allowing rescission of the plea. |
| Did Munoz’s flight constitute a breach of the plea enabling rescission of the entire agreement? | Delacruz-like claim that absence from sentencing cannot void agreement. | Government could rescind due to substantial breach by Munoz's absconding. | Yes; substantial breach by fleeing allowed rescission. |
| Does Munoz’s flight affect credit for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E.1.1(a)? | Flight obstructed justice; may still deserve credit. | Flight shows lack of acceptance; no credit warranted. | Flight precludes credit for acceptance of responsibility. |
| Was Munoz entitled to due process or equal protection relief for the sentence increase due to flight? | Constitutional rights violated by higher sentence solely for fleeing. | Court appropriately tied extra time to flight and underlying crimes. | No constitutional violation; sentence within permissible range given flight. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. O’Doherty, 643 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 2011) (interpret plea agreements using contract-like approach with public-interest considerations)
- United States v. Delacruz, 144 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 1998) (absenting to sentencing breaches plea; flight defeats bargain)
- United States v. Kelly, 337 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2003) (substantial breach permits government to rescind plea)
- United States v. Ramunno, 133 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 1998) (breach analysis; government may rescind entire agreement)
- United States v. David, 58 F.3d 113 (4th Cir. 1995) (implicit obligation to appear for sentencing)
- United States v. Sakellarion, 649 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2011) (appellate waiver stands or falls with bargain)
- United States v. Mount, 675 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes credit for acceptance from other § 3E.1.1(b) issues)
- United States v. Nduribe, 703 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir. 2013) (flight burden on government and enforcement considerations)