Federal Criminal Appeals Lawyer call 1-800-APPEALS (1-800-277-3257)
U.S. v Munoz
408 F.3d 222
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided on April 29, 2005
Issue:
Government Advocates for Higher Offense Level at Sentencing
Whether the Government breached the plea agreement when, at sentencing, it advocated for a base offense level of 29, four points higher than the one stipulated in defendant Munoz’s plea agreement.
Holding:
Government Contradicted Promise Set Forth in Agreement
The Fifth Circuit held that the Government breached the agreement by advocating for an offense level other than the one stipulated, and defendant’s sentence was therefore vacated and remanded.
Federal Criminal Appeals Lawyer call 1-800-APPEALS (1-800-277-3257)
Facts:
Defendant Munoz was involved in a Ponzi scheme that defrauded numerous individuals of their funds for falsified investments. Munoz and his codefendants were indicted for 33 counts of various instances of conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. Munoz pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and to conspiracy to commit money laundering. Per the agreement, the Government agreed to a total offense level of 25, combined with a criminal history category of I, with a sentencing guidelines range of 57-71 months of imprisonment.
The presentence report (PSR), however, calculated Munoz’s sentence differently: recommending a total offense level of 29, with a criminal history category of I, yielding a sentencing guidelines range of 87-108 months’ imprisonment. The higher offense level resulted because the crime was committed through abuse of a position of trust. Munoz filed a written objection to the PSR and asked the district court to follow the calculation set forth in the plea agreement. At sentencing, Munoz again renewed his objection to the PSR’s recommendation of the abuse-of-trust enhancement. The Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) urged the application of the enhancement, and stated that he was free to take that position despite it not being stipulated in the plea agreement. The district court sentenced Munoz to 90 months of imprisonment for the money laundering and 60 months for the wire fraud conviction, to run concurrently. Munoz appealed, arguing that the Government breached the agreement when it argued for the enhancement at sentencing.
Analysis:
Government Must Adhere to the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement
If a defendant pleads guilty as part of an agreement, the Government must follow the terms it set forth in the agreement. “When a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled” (Santobello v New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed2d 427 (1971). In determining whether the Government breached the agreement, the Fifth Circuit considers whether the Government’s conduct was “consistent with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement.”
The Fifth Circuit affirmed that the Government breached the agreement, as the document stated that both parties “agree that the applicable sentencing guidelines should be calculated as follows” The agreement set out specific calculations, which did not include an enhancement for abuse of trust. Because the Government did not include that enhancement in the agreement, the parties agreed it was not an applicable guideline.
Nevertheless, the Government advocated for the application of the enhancement at the sentencing hearing, and the AUSA stated that “I…did not mention this aspect in the Plea Agreement, but that didn’t mean I was not free to argue my position about it.” The Fifth Circuit disagreed, however, concluding that because the enhancement was not part of the agreement, advocating for it at the sentencing hearing constituted a breach. The Government contradicted its promise set forth in the agreement. Accordingly, defendant Munoz’s sentence was vacated and remanded before a different judge.