United States v. Tarbell
728 F.3d 122
2d Cir.2013Background
- Tarbell was indicted April 27, 2011, with co‑defendants for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana.
- December 21, 2011 Tarbell entered into separate plea and confidential cooperation agreements with the government; plea would be by information with a ten‑year minimum due to prior conviction.
- The cooperation agreement gave the U.S. Attorney sole discretion to credit cooperation by moving for downward departure or dismissing related counts, but did not promise such motions.
- Tarbell pleaded guilty January 20, 2012; Rule 11(b)(2) colloquy occurred, the court stated it was bound to a ten‑year minimum, and the cooperation agreement was not discussed in open court.
- Before sentencing, July 9, 2012 the government informed the court it would not move for a departure or dismiss for lack of substantial cooperation; Tarbell was sentenced to 120 months.
- On appeal Tarbell challenges voluntariness of the plea, alleged breach of the cooperation agreement, and ineffective assistance during sentencing; the court affirms the district court and dismisses the ineffective assistance claim without prejudice to §2255.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of plea under Rule 11(b)(2) | Tarbell argues the plea was not voluntary without discussing the cooperation agreement. | Government argues no plain error; cooperation agreement was independent and not required for voluntariness. | No plain error; plea voluntary. |
| Breach of cooperation agreement | Tarbell contends government breached by failing to move for substantial assistance. | Government acted in good faith; discretion lies with the U.S. Attorney and no obligation to move. | No breach; decision based on good faith. |
| Ineffective assistance during sentencing | Tarbell claims counsel was ineffective for not raising the cooperation issue at sentencing. | Court should not resolve ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal and should await a §2255 petition. | Dismissed without prejudice to timely §2255 petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Espinal v. United States, 634 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2011) (plain‑error standard for Rule 11 violations)
- Marcus v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2159 (S. Ct. 2010) (plain‑error framework for criminal appeals)
- Alvarado v. United States, 720 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2013) (clarifies plain error analysis standards)
- Youngs v. United States, 687 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2012) (scope of Rule 11 inquiries and consequences)
- Woltmann v. United States, 610 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 2010) (plea/agreement considerations and district court rulings)
- Gregory v. United States, 245 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2001) (treatment of cooperation agreements)
- Basket v. United States, 82 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996) (rejection of automatic belief in cooperation motions)
- Roe v. United States, 445 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for evaluating government discretion in cooperation)
- In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923 (2d Cir. 2010) (procedural considerations for sealing sensitive materials)