United States v. Osei
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10032
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Osei pled guilty to one count of illegal remuneration and two counts of false statements; district court accepted pleas and imposed 63 months, above guideline range 46–57.
- Prior to sentencing, Osei moved to withdraw pleas, claiming coercion, misunderstanding of relevant conduct, and lack of knowing or voluntary consent; district court denied.
- Government and Osei had a written agreement: remaining conduct could be considered as relevant conduct for sentencing; plea colloquies ensured understanding and voluntariness.
- Osei later pled guilty to two counts of false statements based on proffer-session conduct; he returned $63,000 later and then pleaded; restitution actions followed.
- Osei moved to withdraw his pleas after custody; court found no fair and just reason and denied the motion; district court sentenced with an upward variance for to deter and reflect harms not captured by Guidelines.
- On appeal, Osei challenges both withdrawal-denial and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Withdrawal of guilty pleas standard | Osei alleges fair and just reason due to counsel influence and misunderstanding | Osei argues lack of voluntariness and innocence concerns | No abuse of discretion; no fair and just reason to withdraw |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Osei claims variance not supported by harm/intent and misrepayment mitigation | Court properly considered loss, remorse, and deterrence; no unreasonable disparity | Sentence not substantively unreasonable; within the court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mugan, 441 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2006) (assessing abuse of discretion in withdrawal of guilty plea)
- United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 1994) (flexible standard for fair and just reason to withdraw plea; not automatic)
- United States v. Woosley, 440 F.2d 1280 (8th Cir. 1971) (plea withdrawal not automatic despite late misgivings)
- United States v. Boone, 869 F.2d 1089 (8th Cir. 1989) (plea hearing record shows voluntariness when denying withdrawal)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (review of substantive reasonableness is deferential; no presumption of unreasonableness for departures)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (narrow, deferential review of within/above/below-Guidelines sentences)