686 F.3d 613
8th Cir.2012Background
- Hanshaw pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A).
- District court initially sentenced Hanshaw to 240 months.
- Rule 35(b) motion sought a 10% sentence reduction for substantial assistance.
- Rule 35(b) hearing occurred telephonically with government and Hanshaw's counsel but without Hanshaw.
- Hawthorn? (headnote) The plea agreement's Paragraphs 11 and 16 govern subsequent proceedings and rights; ambiguity arises about participation rights.
- Court compares the Hanshaw case to United States v. Lewis and holds the absence denial was plain error but not to affect substantial rights in this record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Hanshaw's absence at the Rule 35(b) hearing violate his rights under the plea agreement? | Hanshaw argues the agreement guaranteed participation in related proceedings. | Government contends no right to personal participation was guaranteed. | Yes, error was plain but not shown to affect substantial rights. |
| Is the Rule 35(b) sentence reviewable under § 3742(a)? | Hanshaw's claim fits § 3742(a)(1) because of breach of a contract right. | No plain error or other basis shown for review. | Reviewable as plain error under § 3742(a)(1). |
| Does ambiguity in 'the parties' language affect Hanshaw's right to participate? | Ambiguity favors Hanshaw; 'parties' could include Hanshaw. | Ambiguity should be construed against government. | Ambiguity resolved in Hanshaw's favor; right to participate implied. |
| Did the absence affect Hanshaw's substantial rights under Lewis v. United States? | Greater relief could have been possible with Hanshaw present. | No additional information shown that would change outcome. | No showing that the error affected substantial rights under Lewis. |
| What is the court's ultimate disposition? | Affirm district court judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lewis, 673 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2011) (plea agreement allowed comment and evidentiary offers in related proceedings; breach analyzed for plain error)
- United States v. Williams, 590 F.3d 579 (8th Cir. 2009) (four-factor plain-error review for Rule 35(b) issues)
- United States v. Jensen, 423 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2005) (contracts are to be interpreted in light of plea agreement purposes)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for reviewing undisputed errors)