Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-4316
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00252-RJC-2)
Argued:
Decided:
Warner,
who
pleaded
guilty
pursuant
to
plea
contends
agreement.
that
the
government
breached
the
plea
We agree.
4-level
enhancement
under
U.S.S.G.
2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
Carolina
conviction
for
breaking
and
entering
motor
it
did,
regardless
of
defendants
criminal
history.
The court,
that
the
enhancement
did
apply,
we
vacate
Warners
I
After Warner and an accomplice broke into 19 motor vehicles
in a parking deck in Charlotte, North Carolina, and stole a .40
caliber pistol from one of the vehicles, a federal grand jury
returned
an
indictment
against
Warner,
charging
him
with
and
abetting
924(l) and 2.
discussed
the
negotiations,
government
the
same,
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
Warners
that
in
of
counsel
plea
plea
stated
agreement
agreement.
in
would
an
obviously
During
to
the
have
to
need
stipulation
2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
[for
that
using
the
or
4-level
possessing
enhancement
any
under
firearm
or
In
responding
email,
the
Special
Assistant
U.S.
She
added that [t]he investigation and talks with witnesses and the
co-Defendant are ongoing[,] but I can as of now agree that this
[enhancement] does not apply.
The next day, on December 13, 2013, Warner signed a plea
agreement with the government in which he agreed to plead guilty
to the charge that he had aided and abetted the theft of a
firearm.
7.
d.
e.
The
the
to
any
claims
of
ineffective
assistance
of
counsel
or
prosecutorial misconduct.
Following
Warners
guilty
probation
In
the
that
plea
plea
officer
pursuant
report,
2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
the
to
subsequently
presentence
the
colloquy,
district
the
prepared
the
probation
4-level
4
plea
court
accepted
agreement,
presentence
officer
enhancement
and
report.
recommended
be
applied,
concluding
that
Warner
had
used
or
possessed
firearm
in
charged
in
North
Carolina
state
court.
With
the
to
history
be
23,
category
which,
of
when
II,
combined
resulted
in
with
a
that
if
the
district
court
Warners
Guidelines
criminal
sentencing
accepted
the
governments
apply
inapplicable
2K2.1(b)(6)(B),
for
two
arguing
distinct
that
reasons;
the
enhancement
first,
because
is
[he]
In
the
same
filing,
however,
the
government
felonies
for
federal
sentencing
purposes,
and
it
clearly
It stated:
its
agreement
with
Warner
prior
to
this
new
official
that
the
governments
statement
to
the
court
declare
the
agreement;
docket;
(2)
(3)
agreeing
government
strike
direct
with
the
the
defense
to
be
in
breach
governments
government
counsels
to
of
objection
file
arguments
a
as
new
to
the
plea
from
the
objection
why
the
Warner explained
that the parties agreement that the enhancement does not apply
was based on the facts of the case, not on any kind of legal
issue involving Simmons or Valdovinos.
At
the
sentencing
hearing,
the
district
court
denied
had
complied
with
the
conditions
of
the
plea
the
district
courts
judgment,
Warner
filed
this
before
two
different
aspects
of
the
district
judge.
district
courts
He
also
Guidelines
calculations.
II
Warner contends that the government breached its promise in
the plea agreement to inform the sentencing court that the 4level
increase
under
2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
does
not
apply
when
it
indicated
at
the
same
time
that
it
viewed
that
the
governments
breach
was
material
because
[e]mails
and
consistently.
It
acknowledges
that
its
enhancement
be
applied
without
grappling
with
the
legal
the
breach
would
not
be
material
because
[b]oth
509 F.3d 191, 195 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
omitted).
At
bottom,
when
plea
rests
in
any
that
it
can
be
said
to
be
part
of
the
inducement
or
Santobello, 404
U.S. at 262.
In the plea agreement before us, the government agreed that
it would, jointly with the defendant, recommend that the Court
make
the
following
U.S.S.G.: . . .
The
findings
parties
and
agree
conclusions
that
the
as
4-level
to
the
increase
inform
the
Court
sentencing process.
the
verb
recommend
of
all
(Emphasis added).
in
the
context
facts
pertinent
to
the
what
the
government
The
government
agreed
to
advise
the
court
of
its
10
the
agreement
was
signed,
the
government
acceded
to
after
execution
of
the
agreement
and
before
the court that since signing the agreement, it ha[d] taken the
new
position
that
the
enhancement
would
apply,
although
it
position.
(Emphasis
added).
Thus,
in
giving
this
to
apply
the
enhancement.
significant.
11
The
difference
is
The
applies
governments
but
that
advice
the
court
to
court
should
that
an
nonetheless
enhancement
not
apply
the
would
feel
free
to
reject
the
advice
as
mere
recommendation.
would
so
not
feel
free
to
reject
the
governments
position,
announced
applicability
to
its
Warner,
new
position
on
it
repeatedly
the
enhancements
requested
that
the
plea
agreement
obligation
was
more
But the
than
simply
to
enhancement
advise
does
not
the
court
apply.
of
And
its
position
thus,
even
that
the
though
the
356
F.3d
539,
543-44
(4th
United States v.
Cir.
2004)
(quoting
In this case,
the
four-level
Warner.
But
this
enhancement
argument
again
should
overlooks
not
the
apply
to
distinction
was
material,
leaving
open
only
the
issue
of
the
appropriate remedy.
When a court of appeals finds a material breach of a plea
agreement and the defendant seeks to withdraw his guilty plea,
13
the court should remand the case to the district court to assess
whether,
in
the
appropriate
to
circumstances
grant
that
of
relief
the
or
263.
If,
performance,
however,
then
the
the
court
the
it
lesser
would
be
relief
of
defendant
should
case,
honor
seeks
that
only
specific
election,
see
United States v. Brown, 500 F.2d 375, 378 (4th Cir. 1974), and
remand with direction that the defendant be resentenced by a
different judge, Santobello, 404 U.S. at 263.
In
this
case,
Warner
specific performance.
has
unequivocally
elected
to
have
of
course,
also
enforce
the
provision
in
his
plea
Therefore, we
14