United States v. Kamal King-Gore
13-3010
| D.C. Cir. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Kamal King-Gore pleaded guilty to distributing >28 grams of cocaine; sentenced to 162 months’ imprisonment and 48 months’ supervised release.
- Prior convictions: multiple drug sentences including a lengthy federal term; released March 2010 and committed the charged offense three months later.
- After indictment, King-Gore gave a voluntary, off-the-record debriefing under government promise that his statements would not be used against him.
- At sentencing the prosecutor relied on information from the debriefing (portraying King-Gore as a "wholesale" trafficker and referencing an unsupported quarter‑kilo figure) and recommended a Guidelines sentence. The government concedes this breached the agreement.
- The district court treated the defendant as a wholesaler and imposed a higher sentence than the defendant sought; King-Gore raised the breach on appeal for the first time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the plea/debriefing agreement by using defendant's statements at sentencing? | Government conceded it breached by using debriefing-derived statements. | King-Gore argued the prosecutor violated the promise not to use those statements. | Breach occurred (conceded by government). |
| What standard of review applies to an unraised sentencing objection? | Government: plain-error review; any error must be clear, affect outcome, and harm judicial integrity. | King-Gore: plain-error standard applies and breach prejudiced sentencing. | Plain‑error standard applies on appeal. |
| Was King-Gore prejudiced by the breach such that resentencing is required? | Government: record contained independent evidence supporting "wholesale" finding; no reasonable likelihood sentence would differ. | King-Gore: prosecutor’s wholesale characterization and quarter‑kilo reference (from debriefing) likely affected the court’s §3553(a) analysis. | Court finds a reasonable likelihood the breach affected sentence; prejudice shown. |
| Remedy and remand instructions | Government: no resentencing necessary. | King-Gore: vacate and remand for resentencing. | Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing before a different judge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error standard elements)
- Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (plain‑error review may find error obvious only in hindsight)
- United States v. Dawson, 587 F.3d 640 (government breach of agreement can constitute plain error)
- United States v. Bostick, 791 F.3d 127 (discussion of plain‑error review in this circuit)
- United States v. Bigley, 786 F.3d 11 (reasonable‑likelihood prejudice standard in sentencing plain‑error review)
- In re Sealed Case, 573 F.3d 844 (resentencing standard; prejudice inquiry less demanding)
- United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283 (sentencing prejudice precedents)
- United States v. Fant, 974 F.2d 559 (breach of government agreement precedent)
- United States v. Mondragon, 228 F.3d 978 (remanding to a different judge after breach)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (plea‑agreement fairness principles)
- United States v. Wolff, 127 F.3d 84 (factors for determining whether to reassign resentencing)