United States v. Lacy, 813 F.3d 654

Background

Harold Lacy pleaded guilty to one count of heroin distribution and entered a written plea agreement that included a broad waiver of appeal rights in exchange for the government's recommendations and cooperation benefits.
The government agreed to recommend a low-end Guidelines sentence and to move for reduction for substantial assistance; the Guidelines low end (before the departure) was 188 months and the government recommended 168 months after a 10% departure.
At sentencing, the prosecutor unexpectedly asked the district court, "as a courtesy" to a state prosecutor, to order Lacy’s federal sentence to run consecutive to any anticipated state sentence; the court accepted the recommendation and imposed 168 months consecutive to any state sentence.
Lacy later received a 20-year state sentence on one state charge; he appealed the federal court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence as an abuse of discretion.
The government argues the appeal is barred by Lacy’s broad, knowing and voluntary appeal waiver and that it did not breach the plea agreement; the district court’s discretion under Setser permitted consecutive sentencing but the court failed to explain § 3553(a) considerations for running consecutive to an undetermined state sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lacy can appeal the consecutive-sentence decision despite his plea waiver	Waiver does not cover the consecutive/concurrent issue because the plea agreement is silent about it	Waiver is broad and unambiguous and bars any challenge to the sentence or how it was determined	Appeal barred by valid, broad waiver; appeal dismissed
Whether the government breached the plea agreement by requesting consecutive time	Request for consecutive sentence effectively increased total punishment beyond the parties’ expectations (arguing breach)	Government fulfilled promises: recommended low-end sentence and substantial-assistance motion; plea was silent on concurrency, so no promise was breached	No breach; plain-error review finds no reversible error
Whether there was a mutual mistake voiding the plea agreement	Parties were mistaken about the likely length/effect of future state sentence, so plea should be voided or modified	Argument waived (raised late) and legally insufficient because future uncertainty is not a mutual mistake of existing fact	Waived and meritless; not a mutual mistake of existing fact
Whether the district court properly exercised discretion in ordering consecutive time to an undetermined state sentence	(Implicit) Court abused discretion by basing concurrency on a courtesy to a state prosecutor without § 3553(a) explanation	District court had Setser authority to order consecutive time but should articulate § 3553(a) justification when state sentence is undetermined	Although discretion existed, the practice of imposing consecutive time as a courtesy is improper; court should explain § 3553(a) considerations — but this concern does not overcome the valid waiver

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Hallahan, 756 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2014) (plea-waiver interpretation and enforcement)
United States v. Jones, 381 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2004) (enforceability of knowing, voluntary appeal waivers)
United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2011) (decision to impose consecutive sentence falls within a broad appeal waiver)
United States v. Adkins, 743 F.3d 176 (7th Cir. 2014) (limits and due-process considerations for appeal waivers)
United States v. Rachuy, 743 F.3d 205 (7th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review of sentencing issues)
United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2013) (plain-error standard explained)
Hurlow v. United States, 726 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2013) (contract principles govern plea agreements)
United States v. Williams, 102 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 1996) (parties’ rights limited to matters actually agreed upon)
United States v. Cook, 406 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2005) (mutual mistake rescission principle applied to plea agreements)