United States v. Thomas
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9248
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Thomas pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and waived his right to appeal as part of the plea agreement.
- The government agreed to recommend a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range.
- The PSR set base offense level at 24 due to a 2002 battery conviction treated as a crime of violence, plus a 4-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6) for using a firearm in connection with state felonies, and a 3-level acceptance of responsibility adjustment.
- Thomas objected to the 2002 battery as a crime of violence, challenged the § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement, and argued it applied only if he possessed a firearm in connection with the offenses, not simply in his possession during a firefight.
- The government presented evidence that Thomas pressed a .357 magnum to the head of a victim, threatened to kill, and shot him, and that Thomas lied under oath about the facts, leading to an upward obstruction adjustment instead of acceptance.
- The district court rejected Thomas's objections, imposed a total adjusted offense level of 30 with criminal history category V, yielding a guidelines range above the statutory maximum, and sentenced him to 120 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the waiver of appeal was enforceable | Thomas argues lack of consideration invalidates waiver. | Waiver should be unenforceable due to lack of consideration. | Waiver enforceable; Thomas's lack of foresight does not void the agreement. |
| Whether the district court plainly erred in enforcing the plea agreement | District court erred by enforcing the waiver given no benefit to Thomas. | The government provided consideration and Thomas knowingly waived rights. | District court did not plainly err in enforcing the plea agreement; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chapa, 602 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2010) (enforceability of waiver de novo; plain-error review if no withdrawal)
- United States v. Villarreal-Tamayo, 467 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2006) (withdrawal not made; plain-error standard for plea-waiver decisions)
- United States v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 1995) (plea agreement promises binding absent unforeseen developments)
- United States v. Quintero, 618 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2010) (plea agreements governed by contract principles)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1961) (promises by prosecutor must be fulfilled when plea rests on inducement)