United States v. Rene Fernandez Noriega
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14530
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Noriega pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and admitted delivering ~20 pounds on Feb 8, 2013; plea agreement stipulated a drug quantity equivalent to a base offense level 36 (5 kg methamphetamine) for sentencing purposes.
- Plea agreement (¶11) listed sentencing factors including drug quantity (stipulated) and defendant’s role (no stipulation as to role enhancement); ¶14 preserved parties’ ability to offer evidence at sentencing.
- The PSR recommended base offense level 38 (based on aggregated transactions) and a four‑level §3B1.1(a) leadership/organizer enhancement.
- At sentencing the Government honored the stipulated base level 36 but introduced evidence (DEA agent and cooperating witness) of broader conduct to support the §3B1.1 enhancement; the district court adopted base level 36, applied the four‑level role enhancement, and imposed 210 months.
- Noriega appealed, arguing the Government breached the plea agreement by introducing evidence of additional drug quantities beyond the paragraph 11(b) stipulation; he did not challenge the district court’s factual application of the role enhancement or the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the drug‑quantity stipulation in the plea agreement limited all relevant conduct at sentencing | Noriega: the stipulation fixed the scope of relevant conduct to the February 8 delivery and barred introduction of additional drug‑quantity evidence | Govt: the stipulation only fixed the base offense level; it did not waive consideration of other relevant conduct or role enhancements; ¶14 left sentencing advocacy open | Court: The stipulation only bound the Govt on the base offense level; Govt did not breach by adducing evidence of additional conduct to support a §3B1.1 enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mosley, 505 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2007) (plea‑agreement interpretation follows contract principles)
- United States v. Selvy, 619 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2010) (government may advocate inclusion of uncharged conduct as relevant where plea agreement contains no limiting language)
- United States v. Lara, 690 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2012) (government breached plea by seeking higher drug quantity than stipulated at sentencing)
- United States v. DeWitt, 366 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2004) (similar holding that government breached when it sought to increase stipulated drug quantity at sentencing)
- United States v. Leach, 491 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing DeWitt where parties only stipulated base level under Chapter Two and government later sought Chapter Four adjustment)
- United States v. Brown, 550 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting appellate scope where defendant does not challenge guideline application or substantive reasonableness)