United States v. Yellow
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25230
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Yellow pled guilty to sexually abusing a minor under a written plea agreement in which the government agreed to recommend a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- The government did not promise to refrain from pursuing an obstruction-of-justice enhancement, and reserved the right to rebut mitigating evidence.
- Before sentencing, Yellow objected to portions of the PSR, including objections to obstruction of justice, lack of acceptance of responsibility, and conduct on pre-trial release.
- At sentencing, the government presented evidence that Yellow and his wife pressured the victim to recant; the district court found obstruction of justice and denied the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- The court sentenced Yellow to 108 months in prison, at the top of the advisory range, and Yellow did not object to the government’s conduct at the time.
- Yellow appeals claiming the government breached the plea agreement by not adequately recommending the acceptance reduction and by presenting obstruction evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the plea agreement on acceptance of responsibility? | Yellow contends the government failed to adequately support the reduction and impliedly agreed to forgo obstruction evidence. | Yellow argues the government complied by recommending the reduction and that obstruction evidence was permissible. | No breach; the government recommended the reduction and obstruction evidence was permissible in context. |
| Was there plain error in evaluating the plea breach and acceptance reduction? | Yellow asserts plain error due to breach and improper handling of the reduction. | Government argues no plain error; cases permit such a recommendation and separate obstruction evidence. | No plain error; court followed controlling precedent and found no breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (plea promises must be fulfilled; breach violates due process)
- Has No Horses, 261 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2001) (government not required to object to PSR against acceptance; both adjustments may apply)
- Thompson, 403 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2005) (plea agreements interpreted as contracts; fulfillment required)
- Smith, 429 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2005) (burden to show breach rests with the asserting party; plain error standard on appeal)
- Jeffries, 569 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain error review for plea-breach claims)