United States v. Wilson
920 F.3d 155
2d Cir.2019Background
- In Oct. 2010 Walker was arrested and later charged in a multi-defendant Gowanus Houses drug conspiracy; he pled guilty in Oct. 2011 to conspiring to distribute ≥200g crack.
- The plea agreement included a Pimentel estimate of a Guidelines range of 108–135 months based on a base offense level 30, a 2‑point weapon enhancement, and a 3‑point acceptance reduction, and stated the Government would not seek an upward departure based on "information now known" unless new information later developed.
- A PSR (Jan. 2012) adopted the Government's estimate and described Walker as an enforcer who carried a firearm; the Government and Probation knew the organization distributed substantial quantities (in excess of 1 kg) at that time.
- Sentencing was postponed at the Government's request so a co-defendant (Herron) could be tried; Herron's trial (2014) produced witness testimony about Walker’s role, firearm use, and large-scale narcotics distribution.
- In Oct. 2016 the Government moved to "revise" Walker's Guidelines, seeking multiple enhancements (greater drug quantity, use of violence, aggravating role) and arguing for a Guidelines range of 360 months to life; Walker objected and later was sentenced to 360 months in May 2017.
- The Second Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding the Government breached the plea agreement by advocating for higher enhancements based on information it already had when the plea was made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government breached Walker's plea agreement by advocating a higher Guidelines sentence at sentencing | Walker: Gov't reneged on its Pimentel estimate and sought substantial upward enhancements based on facts it already knew when negotiating the plea | Gov't: The plea reserved nonbinding estimate; it legitimately relied on new or newly "actionable" information developed at co-defendant's trial and thus did not breach | Court: Breach. The plea limited changes absent new information; the enhancements were based on information already known, producing serious unfairness and violating Walker's reasonable expectations |
| Whether alleged breach was harmless (prejudice) | Walker: District Court relied on the revised, incorrect Guidelines range so prejudice is shown | Gov't: Any breach did not affect Walker's substantial rights | Court: Prejudice shown under Molina‑Martinez; reliance on an incorrect higher range suffices to show effect on substantial rights |
| Proper remedy for the breach | Walker: Requested resentencing (not plea withdrawal) | Gov't: (implicitly) any remedy not specified; court must choose appropriate relief | Court: Specific performance (resentencing) rather than plea withdrawal; resentencing before a different district judge ordered |
| Whether Government acted in bad faith | Walker: Change in position and timing indicates unfairness; possibly bad faith | Gov't: Denies bad faith; claims changes were justified by new or actionable info | Court: Did not need to find bad faith; serious unfairness from circumstances sufficed to find breach |
Key Cases Cited
- Paradiso v. United States, 689 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1982) (plea‑agreement breach inquiry asks what defendant reasonably understood and expected)
- Pimentel, 932 F.2d 1029 (2d Cir. 1991) (endorsing practice of providing nonbinding Guidelines estimates to reduce surprise)
- Palladino v. United States, 347 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2003) (Government breached where plea assurances and known evidence made later enhancements unforeseeable)
- Habbas v. United States, 527 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2008) (no breach where estimate language and facts showed defendant could expect later adjustment)
- MacPherson v. United States, 590 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing Pimentel‑estimate doctrine and review standards)
- Vaval v. United States, 404 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2005) (plea bargains construed strictly against the government; remedies for breach)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutorial promises integral to plea bargaining must be fulfilled)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (application of an incorrect, higher Guidelines range ordinarily shows effect on substantial rights)