United States v. Jesse Chavful
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4662
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Chavful pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute ≥5 kg of cocaine and entered a cooperation/plea supplement promising that information he provided (other than charged conduct) would not be used to increase his Guidelines or for further prosecution, incorporating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8.
- The PSR attributed 15 kg cocaine and 1,200 lbs marijuana to Chavful based on (a) a November 2011 negotiation (10 kg/1,000 lb) and (b) an actual June 2012 delivery (5 kg/200 lb), yielding a combined Guidelines range later reduced by a 5K1.1 departure.
- Chavful contested double-counting under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 commentary (negotiated vs. transacted amounts); probation and the government argued the incidents were separate transactions.
- At sentencing the Government invoked an intervening spring 2012 transaction (30 lbs marijuana) — information obtained under the proffer — to argue the November and June deals were distinct; defense objected that this used protected information.
- The district court agreed with the PSR and held Chavful responsible for both amounts, granted a 3-level 5K1.1 departure, and sentenced Chavful to 97 months; Chavful timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Chavful's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government breached the plea agreement by using proffer-protected information to support a larger Guidelines range | The Government breached the agreement by invoking protected proffer information (the spring 2012 30-lb delivery) to argue the November and June transactions were separate, increasing his Guidelines exposure | Government argued the intervening transaction was an already-known PSR fact and was used only to show the transactions were independent, not to attribute the protected conduct to sentence calculation | Court held the Government breached the plea agreement by using protected information to advocate for a higher Guidelines range and remanded for resentencing before a different judge |
| Whether Chavful preserved his objection and applicable standard of review | Objected at sentencing when Government referenced proffered facts; preserved error | Government argued plain-error review because of lack of preservation | Court held the objection was timely and sufficiently specific; reviewed de novo whether plea was breached |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding the government breached a cooperation agreement by using proffered information to argue for a leadership role and higher guidelines)
- United States v. Harper, 643 F.3d 135 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding government may not use immunized/proffered statements to fill gaps in PSR and advocate a higher sentencing range)
- United States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292 (5th Cir. 1994) (plea-bargain breach analysis uses parties' reasonable understanding of the agreement)
- United States v. Valencia, 985 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1993) (same principle on interpreting plea terms and reasonable expectations)
- United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2009) (describing what constitutes a sufficiently specific objection to preserve error)
- United States v. Morales-Sosa, 191 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 1999) (discussing acceptance of plea and Rule 11 context)