United States v. Roberto Rentas Negron
684 F. App'x 115
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Roberto Rentas Negron pleaded guilty (2013) to possession with intent to distribute ≥5 kg of cocaine and entered a plea and cooperation agreement with the Government.
- The cooperation agreement stated that if the Government determined Rentas had “fully complied” and provided “substantial assistance,” it would move for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. §5K1.1 and might move under 18 U.S.C. §3553(e) to avoid a statutory minimum.
- While incarcerated and awaiting sentencing, Rentas was found guilty of possessing marijuana — a separate federal offense — which the Government treated as a breach of the cooperation agreement.
- At sentencing (2016) the Government declined to move for a §5K1.1 or §3553(e) departure; the District Court found no gross abuse of discretion and sentenced Rentas to the 120‑month statutory minimum (with credit for time served).
- Rentas appealed, arguing the Government breached the agreement by not moving for a departure; the Third Circuit reviewed de novo whether the refusal was in bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government breached the cooperation agreement by refusing to move for a §5K1.1/§3553(e) departure | Rentas: Government breached by not filing departure motion despite his cooperation | Government: It properly declined because Rentas did not fully comply with the agreement after committing a separate federal crime | Held: No breach; denial not in bad faith because Rentas violated the agreement by committing another crime |
| Whether the District Court erred by not compelling the Government to file a departure motion | Rentas: Court should have ordered Government to move or held a hearing to test the Government’s decision | Government: Court properly deferred to prosecutorial discretion given Rentas’s breach | Held: No reversible error; court had no basis to compel the motion |
| Whether Rentas presented evidence that the marijuana was not his or merited a hearing | Rentas: Contended the marijuana was not his and cooperation continued afterward | Government: Rentas produced no evidence to create a factual dispute; continued contact does not erase the breach | Held: Rentas offered no evidence; no hearing required |
| Whether a district remand for bad-faith analysis was required | Rentas: Implicitly argues prior analysis insufficient | Government: Even applying correct standard, only one outcome is possible given the breach | Held: No remand needed; proper standard would produce same result |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Isaac, 141 F.3d 477 (3d Cir.) (defendant must produce evidence to warrant a hearing on compliance)
- United States v. Swint, 223 F.3d 249 (3d Cir.) (prosecutor may decline to move for departure where defendant breaches cooperation terms)
- United States v. Floyd, 428 F.3d 513 (3d Cir.) (defendant’s failure to meet agreement conditions excuses government from filing departure motion)
- United States v. Schwartz, 511 F.3d 403 (3d Cir.) (continued government interaction does not necessarily negate a defendant’s breach)
- Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir.) (no remand required where application of correct legal standard could produce only one conclusion)