634 F. App'x 47
2d Cir.2016Background
- Defendant Lamont Robinson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 846) and agreed in a written plea agreement to a stipulated Guidelines range of 57–71 months based on 28–112 grams, a three-level acceptance adjustment, and criminal history category III.
- The plea agreement also stated no party would seek any Guidelines departure or adjustment not set forth in the agreement, but allowed either party to present facts relevant to sentencing and to make § 3553(a) arguments; the court was not bound by the stipulation.
- The government filed a September 3, 2013 sentencing submission describing Robinson as an “active, managing member” and asserting he “held a managerial role,” without detailing specific factual bases for that characterization.
- At sentencing the district court, having read the government letter, considered and applied a two-level role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, recalculated attributable drug weight, declined a firearm enhancement, and sentenced Robinson to 120 months (after recalculation the Guidelines would have been higher).
- Robinson appealed, arguing the government breached the plea agreement by advocating a higher Guidelines range (via managerial-role language, higher drug weight, and firearm enhancement), and sought vacatur and resentencing; the Second Circuit found breach based on the managerial-role advocacy and remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by advocating a higher Guidelines range | Government: its letter merely presented facts and § 3553(a) arguments and did not request a role enhancement | Robinson: government’s use of “manager/managerial role” without factual support effectively argued for a § 3B1.1 role enhancement, breaching the agreement | Breach found: the government’s conclusory “managerial” label, unaccompanied by supporting facts, improperly suggested a role enhancement and breached the plea agreement |
| Whether any breach was de minimis and did not require remand | Government: any breach was de minimis and did not affect sentencing | Robinson: the letter prompted the court to consider and apply the enhancement, affecting sentence | Not de minimis: the district court acknowledged the enhancement occurred to it only after reading the government letter; breach affected the sentence and remand required |
| Remedy for breach of plea agreement | Government: no substantial prejudice; remand unnecessary | Robinson: vacatur and resentencing before a different judge required | Remedy: vacate judgment and remand for resentencing before a different judge (to avoid influence of prior advocacy) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Riera, 298 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2002) (plea agreements interpreted de novo and like contracts)
- United States v. Granik, 386 F.3d 404 (2d Cir. 2004) (plea agreements construed with additional fairness protections)
- United States v. Vaval, 404 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2005) (plea agreements construed against government; government statements disclaiming intent do not prevent finding of breach)
- United States v. Amico, 416 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2005) (distinguishing permissible mild legal descriptions from impermissible advocacy that breaches plea terms)