US v Robinson
No. 13-3683-CR
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided on January 15, 2016
Federal Criminal Appeals Lawyer call 1-800-APPEALS (1-800-277-3257)
Issue:
Government Mischaracterizes Defendant in Submission Letter
Whether the Government breached the plea agreement when it described defendant Robinson as a manager of the criminal conspiracy in the sentencing submission letter, where the agreement stipulated that the parties would not advocate for departures from the agreed-upon Sentencing Guidelines range.
Holding:
Submission Letter Breached Agreement
The Second Circuit held that the government breached the agreement with its sentencing submission letter, which described defendant as a manager, attributed to defendant a higher drug weight calculation than stipulated, and advocated for a firearm enhancement.
Federal Criminal Appeals Lawyer call 1-800-APPEALS (1-800-277-3257)
Facts:
Defendant was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of conspiring to distribute an unspecified quantity of crack cocaine. The plea agreement contained several provisions stipulating that Robinson’s offense conduct involved at least 28 grams but less than 112 grams of cocaine base, with a base offense level of 26, a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and a criminal history category of III. This resulted in a Guidelines range of 57-71 months’ imprisonment. The agreement stated that “neither a downward nor an upward departure from the Stipulated Guidelines range…is warranted” and that “neither party will seek any departure or adjustment pursuant to the Guidelines that is not set forth herein…” The agreement also permitted either party to “seek a sentence outside of the Stipulated Guidelines range…based upon the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence…to present to the Court any facts relevant to sentencing.”
Defendant argued that the Government breached the agreement by advocating for a higher Guidelines range in its sentencing submission. In its submission, the Government “gratuitously” described defendant as a manager of the criminal conspiracy. It also advocated for a higher drug weight calculation than was stipulated in the agreement, as well as a firearm enhancement. At sentencing, the district court judge stated that he had not considered the managerial role enhancement until after the Government’s letter, and he proceeded to apply the two-level enhancement. Defendant was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, claiming that the Government’s letter breached the agreement.
Analysis:
Government Did Not Present Facts in Characterizing Defendant as a Manager
While the plea agreement reserved the Government’s right to present relevant facts to the court, the submission letter did not describe such facts. The Government did not list any specific facts regarding defendant’s role as a manager that might have formed the basis for the enhancement, rather, the Government used the Guidelines’ term of “manager” in a conclusory fashion. The Second Circuit explained that this strategy—characterizing Robinson as a leader without a single fact supporting the claim—“could have served no purpose other than to call the district court’s attention to the possibility of a role enhancement.” Had the Government instead supplied facts to support the claims made in the submission, there would have been no breach of plea agreement. Robinson’s sentence was vacated, and his case remanded to a different judge.