United States v. Keller
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24148
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Keller pleaded guilty to three counts (two felon-in-possession, one distribution of crack cocaine) under a plea agreement that waived appeal of conviction or sentence within the agreed range.
- Paragraph 2B of the plea agreement defined the guideline range, with handwritten notations showing disagreement about the applicable range; the attached worksheet indicated ongoing disputes.
- The presentence report calculated a 135-168 month range, lower than the negotiated 188-235 months; Keller objected to a four-level enhancement.
- The district court adopted the 135-168 month range as the agreed range and sentenced Keller to 168 months, within that range.
- The Government breached the plea agreement by advocating for a 235-month sentence, but Keller did not object at trial; Keller sought remand for resentencing.
- Keller appeals asserting breach affected rights, waivers, and the four-level enhancement; the court ultimately affirmed and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government's breach harmed Keller's substantial rights | Keller | Keller | Breach did not affect substantial rights; plain-error standard applied and not prejudicial |
| Whether the breach releases Keller's waiver of appeal | Keller | Keller | Waiver remained valid because sentence within agreed range; breach did not void waiver |
| Scope of Keller's appeal waiver given objections to guideline calculations | Keller | Keller | Waiver valid; objections to calculations did not expand the scope beyond the agreed range |
| Whether the four-level enhancement was correctly applied | Keller | Keller | Courts upheld the ruling within the agreed range; issue moot since appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 2009) (plain-error review for breached plea agreements)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error test components)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (Supreme Court 1997) (substantial rights and prejudice standard)
- Calderon, 388 F.3d 197 (6th Cir. 2004) (waiver is unlimited in scope when language permits)
- Barnes, 278 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2002) (breach with record evidence of no prejudice vs. prejudice to outcome)
- Coker, 514 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2008) (disputing sentence enhancements and appeal scope)
- Bowden, 975 F.2d 1080 (4th Cir. 1992) (waiver scope limited when sentence outside guidelines)
- McCoy, 508 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2007) (waiver scope and guideline range discussion)
- Gonzalez, 16 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 1994) (breach not always release from appellate waiver; materiality analysis varies)