US v. Fowler

445 F. 3d 1035

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 

Decided on April 17, 2006

Issue:

Government Advocates for Enhancement Despite Plea Agreement Stipulations

Whether the Government breached the plea agreement with defendant Fowler when it advocated for the career-offender enhancement at sentencing despite stipulating in the agreement to recommend defendant’s offense level to be 25. 

Holding:

Government Breached Agreement

The Eighth Circuit held that the Government breached the plea agreement when it advocated for the imposition of the career-offender enhancement despite its recommendation that the offense level be 25. 

Facts:

Dwight Fowler pled guilty to five counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The plea agreement specifically addressed a number of sentencing issues, including Fowler’s estimated offense level of 25. The “GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATIONS” section of the agreement detailed the version of the Guidelines manual the parties recommend, the applicable base offense level for the conduct, and what enhancements applied. The section concluded, “based on these recommendations, the parties estimate that the Total Offense Level is 25.” 

The pre-sentence report (PSR), however, recommended the imposition of the career-offender enhancement based on defendant’s past conviction stemming from a series of armed robberies, raising his offense level to 29. Fowler objected to the enhancement, arguing that it would be a breach of the plea agreement. In response, the Government filed a memorandum in support of the PSR enhancement, disputing that it had agreed the career-offender enhancement was inapplicable. The district court accepted the Government’s argument and sentenced defendant to 151 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. 

Analysis:

Government Advocated for a Different Outcome from the One Promised 

The plea agreement in this case clearly bound both the Government and Fowler to recommend an adjusted offense level of 25 for his conduct. But in its written and oral presentation to the court, the Government actively advocated for an outcome different from the one it promised Fowler. At oral argument, the Government suggested it felt compelled to state its view because the district court asked for it at sentencing. This assertion fails to explain the Government’s written response to Fowler’s objections to the PSR, and the district court’s asking for the Government’s position does not excuse it for failing to abide by the plea agreement. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to determine the appropriate remedy. 

Unfair sentence? Contact a federal appeals lawyer today.