F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 9 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-3008
(D.C. No. 97-CR-20037)
PATRICK J. McGRAW, a/k/a P.J. (D. Kan.)
McGRAW,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, McKAY, and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Defendant Patrick J. McGraw operated an adult entertainment club called
Shadows in Kansas City, Kansas. He also owned Shadows’ parent corporation,
McGoo’s. During an investigation of defendant, the government estimated
defendant’s corporate income by reviewing invoices from liquor distributors and
estimating the number of drinks per bottle and price per drink. In 1994,
defendant and the government entered into a plea agreement under which
defendant agreed to waive indictment and plead guilty to one count of tax evasion
for the tax year ending March 31, 1993, based on an understatement of corporate
income. The agreement specified, in part, that defendant would file amended
corporate tax returns for prior years, pay additional tax, and assist the government
in its investigation of others. The agreement specified that the government would
recommend a sentence of probation, but if the district court did not accept that
recommendation, defendant would be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and the
government would be allowed to “seek an indictment on the instant charge and
any other additional charges it so desires.” Appellee’s Suppl. App. at 5. The
district court did not accept the recommended sentence. Defendant withdrew his
guilty plea, but paid additional tax and filed amended tax returns for the specified
years. The information was dismissed.
In 1997, defendant was indicted for filing false tax returns for the same tax
years for which he filed amended returns. He filed a motion to dismiss the
-2-
indictment, arguing that the 1994 plea agreement estopped the government from
proceeding with the 1997 prosecution. He also argued that the government
violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(6) by using statements made during the 1994 plea
negotiations in forming the 1997 indictment. The district court denied the motion
to dismiss. Defendant then entered a plea of guilty conditioned on bringing this
appeal. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). The district court sentenced him to eight
months’ incarceration and a $10,000 fine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291.
Whether the government has violated a plea agreement is a question of law
which we review de novo. See United States v. Cooper , 70 F.3d 563, 565
(10th Cir. 1995). Plea agreements are governed by contract principles. See id.
When defendant withdrew his guilty plea, he rescinded the plea agreement and it
ceased to bind him or the government. Cf. Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S.
257, 269 (1971) (stating that “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”); United States v.
Brye , 146 F.3d 1207, 1210 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding that appeals court examines
“the nature of the government’s promise” in plea agreement and “defendant’s
reasonable understanding . . . [when] the guilty plea was entered”). The cases
defendant cites as authority for his position are inapposite because they are all
-3-
premised on a guilty plea actually being entered. Moreover, the agreement in this
case warned defendant that if he should withdraw his plea, the government would
be free to pursue indictment on any matter. Defendant has not shown that the
government relied on any statements made by him during plea negotiations in
forming the basis for the 1997 indictment.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Circuit Judge
-4-