United States v. Raifsnider
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24978
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Raifsnider pled guilty in 2005 to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) via a written plea with an integration clause excluding other charges.
- The plea was amended to include a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentencing recommendation of 180 months for the firearm case.
- A second AUSA disclosed discussions about WDMO fraud charges and Rule 20 transfers and stated possible consolidation of sentencing and that the total sentence could be affected by fraud loss calculations.
- In 2005 the WDMO fraud charges had not yet been filed and were not addressed at sentencing for the firearm case.
- Fraud charges were later filed in 2008 and superseded in 2009, adding aggravated identity theft counts; Raifsnider moved to dismiss as precluded by the 2005 plea, district court denied, and Raifsnider pled guilty to all five counts with some terms run consecutive to the firearm sentence.
- The court imposed 180 months on the firearm case, plus downward departure and 18-month sentences for the identity theft counts, leading to a net sentence longer than 180 months; Raifsnider timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement. | Raifsnider argues the WDMO charges would be filed and run with the firearm sentence. | Raifsnider claims promises extended to consolidation and concurrent sentencing. | No breach; promises not shown to apply to WDMO charges. |
| Whether the second AUSA's statements created a binding promise for consolidation. | Raifsnider contends promises to consolidate sentencing existed. | Government argues statements were aspirational, not promises. | Not a binding promise; statements did not induce the guilty plea. |
| Whether the guilty plea rested on inducements beyond the written agreement. | Raifsnider contends oral promises induced plea. | Plea was not contingent on those promises; integration clause preserved limits. | Guilty plea not induced by the alleged promises; binding 180-month Rule 11(c)(1)(C) applies to firearm case only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (promises inducing a plea must be fulfilled)
- United States v. Jensen, 423 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2005) (breach of inducement promises affects due process)
- United States v. Leach, 562 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2009) (integration clause generally limits oral promises; exception when promises not in writing)
- United States v. Sanchez, 508 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2007) (contract principles govern plea agreement interpretation)
- Peavy v. United States, 31 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir. 1994) (oral promises may be enforceable if they induced plea despite written agreement)
- United States v. Hunt, 205 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2000) (integration clause does not bar evidence of all promises to induce plea)
- United States v. Paton, 535 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2008) (issues of plea interpretation reviewed de novo)