United States v. Manzo
675 F.3d 1204
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Manzo was convicted in the manufacturing case of conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and pled guilty in the distribution case to distribution of methamphetamine; a supervised release violation was also charged.
- The PSR grouped the manufacturing and distribution offenses for sentencing and calculated a single offense level by converting quantities to marijuana equivalents, yielding level 38 contrary to the plea agreement's level 34 for the distribution case.
- Manzo’s plea agreement waived direct appeal and collateral attack except for ineffective assistance claims and certain guideline errors; the government agreed to recommend a 3-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and to run the distribution sentence concurrently with the manufacturing sentence.
At sentencing, the government did not follow the agreement: it endorsed the grouping-based level 38 rather than the 34, and did not affirmatively recommend the 3-level downward departure, which Manzo argues breached the plea.
Manzo challenged the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and breach of the plea agreement; the district court rejected both claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for failing to anticipate grouping and advise withdrawal? | Manzo | Manzo | Yes; issue remanded for prejudice inquiry. |
| Did the government breach the plea agreement by not recommending 34 and a downward departure? | Manzo | Government | Yes; breach found; remand for specific performance or prejudice analysis. |
| Was the plea-breach claim reviewable for plain error? | Manzo | Government | Plain error established for breach affecting substantial rights. |
| How should relief be fashioned on remand given the grouping issue? | Manzo | Government | Remand for prejudice determination; possible vacatur and trial option or resentencing before a different judge with specific performance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court 1971) (plea agreements must be fulfilled; equity relief available to preserve integrity of process)
- Whitney v. United States, 673 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for plea-bargain breach where not raised at sentencing)
- Transfiguracion, 442 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2006) (mutual mistake of law does not void an otherwise valid plea agreement)
- Mondragon, 228 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2000) (remand when issues relate to plea negotiations; limits of law-of-the-case concerns)
- Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2000) (prosecutor’s duty to be truthful about sentencing calculations; can still perform promised terms)
- De la Fuente, 8 F.3d 1333 (9th Cir. 1993) (defendant’s understanding at plea controls for evaluating breach)
- United States v. Alcala-Sanchez, 666 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2012) (integrity of plea bargaining supports relief when government’s breach occurs)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Melchor, 648 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2011) (plea contract as between prosecutor and defendant; promises must be fulfilled)