United States v. Ubaldo Gonzalez-Aguilar
718 F.3d 1185
9th Cir.2013Background
- Gonzalez-Aguilar pleaded guilty to one count of being a previously deported alien found in the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 57 months.
- The plea agreement 11(c)(1)(C) stipulated a 46-month sentence and barred any arguments for other specific sentence characteristics.
- The district court reserved acceptance pending a presentence evaluation and considered a presentence report showing extensive prior offenses and Criminal History Category V.
- The presentence reports yielded a guideline range of 46 to 57 months.
- The government filed a sentencing memorandum advocating 46 months and detailing Gonzalez-Aguilar’s prior convictions; it also argued ongoing criminal conduct.
- The district court declined to accept the plea and sentenced Gonzalez-Aguilar to 57 months after concluding the 46-month term would be inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the plea by its sentencing memorandum? | Gonzalez-Aguilar argues breach of the 11(c)(1)(C) plea. | Government contends no breach or prejudice from memorandum. | No plain-error prejudice established. |
| Whether any breach affected substantial rights and the outcome of sentencing | Gonzalez-Aguilar claims prejudice from breach would alter outcome. | Government contends record shows independent district court evaluation. | No reasonable probability of a more lenient sentence if breached. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for plea breaches; prejudice required)
- United States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999) (prohibition on improper sentencing arguments)
- Marcus v. United States, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (prejudice must be reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework and prejudice analysis)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (prejudice under plain-error review requires probability of different outcome)
- United States v. Cannel, 517 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review procedures in plea context)