United States v. Scott Long
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13508
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Long and others were indicted for large-scale cocaine distribution; Long pleaded guilty to conspiracy (Count One) pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained a merger clause and said nothing about leader/organizer enhancements.
- Prior to pleading, Long’s counsel exchanged e-mails with the AUSA (Dec. 23, 2010 and Jan. 6, 2011) summarizing negotiations; the AUSA replied, “I believe you have stated everything correctly.”
- The PSR recommended a four-level U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) leader/organizer enhancement; the Government filed a Response stating it took no issue with the PSR and believed it accurate.
- Long filed a sealed motion to enforce the alleged e-mail agreement prohibiting the enhancement; at sentencing the district court found no enforceable extrinsic promise and adopted the PSR, granting a § 5K1.1 downward departure and sentencing Long to 235 months.
- On appeal Long argued the e-mail exchange became part of the plea agreement and that the Government breached it by supporting the enhancement; the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Long) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-plea e-mails became part of the plea agreement and barred the § 3B1.1 enhancement | The e-mail exchange constituted an extra agreement not in the written plea and induced Long to plead guilty | The written plea—with a merger clause—represents the complete agreement; no promise about role enhancement existed | The e-mails did not become part of the plea agreement; plea agreement unambiguous and merger clause controls |
| Whether the Government breached any enforceable promise by not opposing the PSR’s leader/organizer enhancement | The Government breached by supporting the PSR and not honoring the pre-plea e-mail commitment | The Government did not make such a promise and, at most, the PSR was factual and the Government did not breach the written plea agreement | No breach; even if there were a promise, the record shows no reasonable reliance and no breach found |
| Whether extrinsic evidence (e-mails) may be used to alter an unambiguous plea agreement | E-mails show additional terms and inducement, so they should be enforced | Parol-evidence rule and merger clause preclude reliance on extrinsic communications not attached to the plea | Extrinsic e-mails not attached to the plea cannot override an unambiguous written plea; defendant’s in-court assurances negate reliance |
| Remedy if breach found (preservation) | Sentence vacatur and resentencing before a different judge | Enforcement of the written plea; no relief needed | Not reached as no breach; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (plea agreements must be enforced and breaches remedied)
- United States v. Melton, 930 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir. 1991) (cover letter promises attached to plea materials may be binding if relied upon)
- United States v. Garcia, 956 F.2d 41 (4th Cir. 1992) (cover letter coupled with plea agreement can form part of the bargain)
- United States v. Fields, 906 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1990) (cover letter and plea agreement read together may create enforceable terms)
- United States v. Elashyi, 554 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2008) (apply contract principles; parol-evidence rule bars extrinsic evidence for unambiguous plea agreements)