United States v. Whitney
673 F.3d 965
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Whitney pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government by filing false claims under 18 U.S.C. § 286 in a scheme involving inmate identities.
- Plea agreement required Whitney to cooperate and limited appeal rights with government sentencing promises, including recommending the low end of the Guidelines and not using incriminating cooperation information for sentencing.
- Presentence report recommended a two-level leadership role enhancement and an 41–51 month guideline range, with an upward departure to 87 months.
- At sentencing, the government urged a leadership enhancement and stated Whitney provided information placing him in a supervisory role, while defense argued Whitney was not a leader, only a facilitator.
- The district court applied a two-level leadership enhancement and imposed an 87-month sentence after departing upward from the guideline range, prompting Whitney’s appeal.
- This appeal contends two government breaches of the plea agreement and an error in the leadership enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the plea agreement? | Whitney | Whitney argues breach by disclosure of cooperation statements and advocating a higher sentence. | Yes, plain error; breach affected substantial rights and integrity. |
| Were Whitney’s substantial rights affected by the breach? | Whitney | The government violated the agreement; could have influenced the sentence. | Yes, probable impact on sentence; substantial rights violated. |
| Did the breach compromise the integrity of the judiciary? | Whitney | Not directly addressed beyond impact on sentence. | Yes, integrity of plea bargain process violated; requires relief. |
| Was the two-level leadership enhancement properly supported? | Whitney | There was supervisory role evidence. | No, record lacked evidence Whitney exercised control over others; clear error. |
| Should the case be remanded to a different judge? | Whitney | Remand not necessary. | Remanded to a different judge for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mondragon v. United States, 228 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2000) (government breach of plea agreement judged under plain error standard)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error review for forfeited errors in sentencing)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (promises in plea bargains must be fulfilled)
- Franco-Lopez v. United States, 312 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (government cannot render its promises illusory in sentencing)
- Johnson v. United States, 187 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999) (government must not introduce information to influence harsher sentence when low-end is promised)
- Lopez-Sandoval v. United States, 146 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 1998) (leadership enhancement requires actual control over others)
- Harper v. United States, 33 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1994) (necessity of showing supervisory role for § 3B1.1(c))
- Avila v. United States, 95 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 1996) (reaffirmed control requirement for leadership enhancement)
- Camper v. United States, 66 F.3d 229 (9th Cir. 1995) (remand for plea proceedings on specific issues; acknowledgment of Santobello lineage)