F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JAN 23 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
No. 01-4202
ROBERT HENRY WERNER, also
known as Redelk Ironhorse Thomas,
Defendant - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
(D.C. No. 2:00-CR-284-Conway)
Submitted on the briefs: *
Vicki Mandell-King, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Chief, Appellate
Division, and Michael G. Katz, Federal Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for
Defendant - Appellant.
Felice John Viti, Assistant United States Attorney and Paul M. Warner, United
States Attorney, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff - Appellee.
Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause therefore
is ordered submitted without oral argument.
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Redelk Ironhorse Thomas, a.k.a. Robert Henry
Werner, pursuant to a written plea agreement, pleaded guilty to one count of
mailing threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). He was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24 months followed by three years of
supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Thomas contends that the government
violated the terms of the plea agreement by not allocuting at the sentencing
hearing. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. §
3742(a), and affirm.
Background
Mr. Thomas was charged in a three-count indictment with mailing
threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876 (Count I), and
mailing threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) (Counts II
and II). He entered into a plea agreement with the government whereby he would
plead guilty to Count Two. In exchange, the government agreed to several
obligations, including the following: “The government will recommend that [Mr.
Thomas] be sentenced at the low end of the applicable guideline range.” I R.
Doc. 69 at 6. During the change of plea hearing, the district court carefully
-2-
reviewed the agreement with Mr. Thomas, expressly reminding him that “[t]he
government will also recommend that you be sentenced at the low end of the
applicable Guideline range.” IV R. at 10. At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr.
Thomas signed the plea agreement and the court accepted his guilty plea.
At sentencing on August 23, 2001, Mr. Thomas spoke for over 55 minutes
to announce a range of objections to the Presentence Report (“PSR”), his
treatment in confinement and other issues not relevant here. V R. at 31. The PSR
expressly noted that “the government also agreed . . . to recommend [Mr. Thomas]
be sentenced at the low end of the applicable guideline range.” VI R. at 2.
During the hearing, the district court indicated that it had read Mr. Thomas’ PSR
“about 3 times.” V R. at 30. Mr. Thomas twice expressed his agreement with the
PSR’s conclusion regarding the appropriate sentencing range of 18 to 24 months:
“the 18 to 24 I’m not going to dispute that,” V R. at 29, and “I agree with the 18
to 24 months.” Id. at 41. During the sentencing hearing, (1) the government did
not verbalize its recommendation that Mr. Thomas be sentenced at the low end of
the range, (2) Mr. Thomas did not object to the government’s failure to do so, and
(3) the court itself made no specific reference to the sentencing recommendation.
Mr. Thomas received a sentence of 24 months imprisonment, the highest
permitted under the guideline range. Id.
-3-
Discussion
A claim that the government has breached a plea agreement is a question of
law we review de novo, even where, as here, the defendant failed to object at the
time of the alleged breach. United States v. Peterson, 225 F.3d 1167, 1170 (10th
Cir. 2000); see also id. at n.2 (noting the circuit split on whether to apply a plain
error analysis, as do a majority of circuits, or de novo review).
Government promises in a plea agreement must be fulfilled to maintain the
integrity of the plea. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). We
apply a two-step analysis to determine if the government breached a plea
agreement: (1) we examine the nature of the government’s promise; and (2) we
evaluate this promise in light of the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the
promise at the time the guilty plea was entered. United States v. Brye, 146 F.3d
1207, 1210 (10th Cir. 1998). Principles of general contract law guide our
analysis of the government’s obligations under the agreement. Thus, in assessing
whether the government has breached the agreement, we look first to the express
terms of the agreement, and if applicable, we construe any ambiguities against the
government as the drafter of the agreement. Id.
The plea agreement contained the following language: “The government
will recommend that [Mr. Thomas] be sentenced at the low end of the applicable
guideline range.” I R. Doc. 69 at 6. Mr. Thomas contends that this required the
-4-
government to allocute in favor of sentencing at the low end of the guidelines.
Our holding in United States v. Smith, 140 F.3d 1325 (10th Cir. 1998), controls
our analysis of this provision. In Smith, we held that “the term ‘recommendation’
in a plea agreement does not require the prosecutor to allocute in favor of specific
adjustments in the defendant’s sentence if the recommendations are contained in
the PSR and the prosecutor does not allocute against an agreed-upon adjustment.”
140 F.3d at 1327. We noted that “[d]efendants should be advised that when there
is no specific statement in a plea agreement that the government must allocute in
favor of its recommendation(s) at a sentencing hearing, the government can
satisfy the term ‘recommendation’ by having its recommendations included in the
PSR, which is then called to the attention of the sentencing court.” Id.
In this case, the government agreed in the plea agreement to recommend
that Mr. Thomas be sentenced at the low end of the guideline range. The
sentencing judge was aware of this recommendation, having advised Mr. Thomas
of it during the change of plea hearing. Furthermore, the recommendation was
included in the PSR, which the sentencing judge reviewed immediately prior to
sentencing. The plea agreement contained no specific language requiring the
government to allocute at sentencing and the government did not allocute against
the recommendation. In light of Smith, the legal implications of the
government’s promise are clear. Mr. Thomas’ reasonable expectations
-5-
concerning the government’s promise were fulfilled. His failure to object at
sentencing is but further evidence that his expectations of the government were
satisfied. As we noted in Smith, the sentencing judge may exercise his discretion
at sentencing to ignore the government’s recommendation without transforming
the prosecutor’s silence into a breach of the plea agreement. 140 F.3d at 1327.
Contrary to the dissent, we will not presume that an experienced district
judge sentenced Mr. Thomas without awareness of the plea agreement,
particularly when the terms of that agreement were contained in the PSR. No
matter how much we deconstruct its language, Smith still controls this case;
“would recommend” as used in Smith, 140 F.3d at 1326, and “will recommend” as
used in this plea agreement, are legally indistinguishable. The government’s
obligation to make a non-binding recommendation was satisfied under the
circumstances given our precedent. 1 It is telling that Smith never discusses either
the passage of time between the plea hearing and the sentencing hearing, nor the
precise language of the plea agreement included in the PSR at issue in that case,
for neither factor is legally relevant to the straightforward holding of Smith: “We
1
Although a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit has held that the district
court’s awareness of the recommendation contained in the plea agreement is
insufficient in the absence of government allocution prior to sentencing, see
United States v. Myers, 32 F.3d 411, 413 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), this court
declined to follow Myers, citing it as contrary authority in Smith. Smith, 140
F.3d at 1327.
-6-
hold that the term ‘recommendation’ in a plea agreement does not require the
prosecutor to allocute in favor of specific adjustments in the defendant’s sentence
if the recommendations are contained in the PSR . . . .” 140 F.3d at 1327.
Apparently, even Mr. Thomas himself no longer believes that the government
breached the plea agreement by failing to allocute concerning the
recommendation, for he has moved to dismiss this appeal without prejudice,
characterizing the issues raised by his able counsel in this appeal as “frivolous.”
AFFIRMED. The motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED.
-7-
01-4202, United States v. Werner
HENRY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
In my view, the plea agreement at issue here required the government,
at the sentencing hearing, to recommend that the court sentence Mr. Thomas at
the low end of the applicable guideline range. By failing to make this
recommendation at the time of sentencing, the government materially breached
the plea agreement. I would therefore remand the case to the district court for re-
sentencing and direct the government to make the required recommendation. My
conclusion is based on a reading of United States v. Smith, 140 F.3d 1325 (10th
Cir. 1998), that differs from the majority’s, and on the application of standard
principles of contract interpretation.
Smith
Unlike the majority, I believe that this circuit’s decision in Smith does not
control our analysis. Two important facts distinguish Smith from the instant case.
First, although the majority does not mention it, twelve weeks passed in
this case between the change of plea hearing (Rec vol. IV, Plea Hr’g, dated May
31, 2001) and the sentencing hearing (Rev. vol. V, Sentencing Hr’g, dated August
23, 2001). Although the district court recognized the government’s promise to
make such recommendations at the change of plea hearing, at the sentencing
hearing the district court never expressly recognized that promise. With that
much time having elapsed between the hearings, I am at least skeptical about
whether the district court at the sentencing hearing recalled with precision what
promises it had noted at the change of plea hearing. The case load of federal
district court judges is heavy; I would not expect a judge to remember a part of a
plea bargain negotiation that was discussed nearly three months earlier.
By contrast, in Smith, the district court at the sentencing hearing
specifically “noted the statements in the PSR concerning the government’s
recommendations.” Smith, 140 F.3d at 1327. Much as the government tries to
imply otherwise – “the district court did note, in a sense, the government’s
recommendations . . . stat[ing]at the sentencing hearing that it had read the PSR
‘about three times,’” Aple’s Br. at 14-15 n.6 – the majority fails to point to, and
the record nowhere includes, a scintilla of specific evidence that the district court
at the sentencing hearing acknowledged the recommendations.
Second, the panel in Smith construed different contractual language than
the contract at issue here. In Smith, we considered the meaning of the noun
“recommendation” as used in the parties’ plea bargain agreement. See Smith, 140
F.3d at 127. Here, the dispute is over the meaning of the future tense verb in the
plea agreement’s statement that the government “will recommend” the designated
sentencing terms. Rec. vol. I, doc. 69, at 6 (Plea Agreement, dated May 31,
2001). While the phrase “will recommend” is obviously grammatically related to
the language at issue in Smith, it is not identical. Thus, we must construe the plea
-2-
agreement in this case to properly resolve this appeal.
Contract Principles
The majority states, and I agree, that “[p]rinciples of contract law guide our
analysis of the government’s obligations under the agreement,” Maj. Op. at 4, and
that “(1) we must examine the nature of the government’s promise; and (2) we
evaluate this promise in light of the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the
promise at the time the guilty plea was entered.” United States v. Brye, 146 F.3d
1207, 1210 (10th Cir. 1998). However, citing to Smith, the majority
unfortunately discards this framework, excerpting only one sentence of the
relevant language in the plea agreement, and concluding that the language of the
PSR is not “legally relevant.” Op. at 6.
I disagree. To determine the nature of the government’s promise, we look
to the terms of the agreement. Paragraph 13, subsections (a)–(c) of the plea
agreement set forth “the terms and conditions of the agreement,” and state in full:
(a) I [Mr. Thomas] will enter a plea of guilty to count II
of the Indictment and will withdraw all my motions associated with
the instant matter. At the time of my sentencing, the government
will move this court to dismiss Counts I and III of the Indictment.
(b) The government will recommend that I be given a 3
level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, if my offense level is
sixteen (16) or greater, or a two level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility if my offense level is less than sixteen (16), if I
demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility for this offense by virtue
of my conduct up to and including the time of sentencing. I
understand that if, in the opinion of the United States Attorney’s
-3-
office, I have not demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility for
this offense, the government will not recommend the acceptance of
responsibility reduction of the applicable guideline range. I further
understand that if the government does not make a recommendation
for acceptance of responsibility due to my failure to accept
responsibility for this offense, it will NOT be a basis for me to
withdraw my guilty plea. I understand that the Court need not follow
the government’s recommendation.
(c) The government will recommend that I be
sentenced at the low end of the applicable guideline range.
Plea Agreement, Rec. vol. I, doc. 69, at 12 (dated May 31, 2001) (emphasis
supplied, except for “NOT”).
In interpreting that language, we must construe any ambiguities against the
drafting party—here the government. See Brye, 146 F.3d at 1210. This bedrock
principle of contract interpretation is recited by the majority, see Maj. Op. at 4,
but nowhere reappears in its analysis.
Applying that principle, I see two reasonable interpretations of the “terms
and conditions” provisions of the plea agreement. First, these provisions can be
read to state that, at the time of the sentencing hearing, the government must take
each of the specified actions, (1) moving to dismiss counts I and III of the
indictment, (2) recommending a downward adjustment in the offense level, and (3)
recommending a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. This first
interpretation is supported by the agreement’s use of the phrase “up to and
including the time of sentencing” in subsection (b): that assessment of Mr.
-4-
Thomas’s conduct clearly could not be completed before the sentencing hearing.
On this reading of the contract, the government could only fulfill its promise by
making a recommendation at sentencing. Second, and in the alternative, these
provisions might be read as specifying a time for the recommendation specified in
subsection (a) – to dismiss the two counts – but not specifying a time for the
recommendations specified in subsections (b) and (c).
The ambiguity here is whether subsection (a)’s “[a]t the time of my
sentencing” modifies only (a) or, instead, should be read to say that the
government promised to make each of the recommendations referred to in §§
(a)–(c) at the time of the sentencing hearing. Given that ambiguity, we adopt the
interpretation adverse to the government as the undisputed drafter of the plea
agreement: the government had an affirmative obligation to take all three actions
at the time of sentencing. This analysis flows directly from the application of
ordinary rules of grammar and from traditional contract principles familiar to our
court. See, e.g., Allison v. Bank One-Denver, 289 F.3d 1223, 1244 (10th Cir.
2001) (Kelly, J.) (“The issue is at bottom a question of contract interpretation”).
The analysis assuredly does not flow from some form of modern academic
deconstruction of the plea agreement. See Black’s Law Dictionary 418 (7th ed.
1999) (“deconstruction, n. In critical legal studies, a method of analyzing legal
principles . . . . [a]lso termed trashing”) (each emphasis in original).
-5-
Step two requires that we evaluate the government’s promise in light of the
defendant’s reasonable understanding at the time the guilty plea was entered. See
Brye, 146 F.3d at 1210. It was reasonable for Mr. Thomas, at the time of the
making of the plea agreement, to have understood that the government would
recommend a sentence at the lower end of the guideline range at the sentencing
hearing. That is not to say that it was reasonable for Mr. Thomas to expect that
the recommendation be done in a certain manner, be it orally or in writing, but that
it was reasonable for him to expect that the recommendation would be given when
the sentencing hearing took place.
The majority instead relies on Mr. Thomas’s failure to object at sentencing,
concluding that his failure to object is “further evidence that his expectations of
the government were satisfied.” Maj. Op. at 6. However, such reliance is
problematic because, as the majority notes, we have already rejected an implied
waiver rule that would penalize the defendant for failure to raise the issue at the
sentencing hearing. See Maj. Op. at 4; United States v. Peterson, 225 F.3d 1167,
1170 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that “a defendant does not waive his right to appeal
a claim that the government has breached a plea agreement when he fails to object
to the breach before the district court”).
Moreover, while it is true that Mr. Thomas could have communicated the
government’s recommendation to the court, that speculation is immaterial to the
-6-
question of whether the government had an obligation to make the promised
recommendation and whether it fulfilled that obligation. See, e.g., United States v.
Roberts, 570 F.2d 999, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (in holding that the government
breached the plea agreement at issue, reasoning that although the government was
not the sole party at fault, “nevertheless the defendant was denied his right to have
the allocution he had been promised put before the court at the time of sentencing
as it clearly would have had the prosecutor addressed the court directly or filed a
statement . . . at the time of sentence”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Breach
The government concedes that the government counsel at the sentencing
hearing said literally nothing regarding the recommendation and the government
does not point to, nor does the record include, any other verbal or written words in
which it actually made the recommendation. Nor does the government argue that it
was not required to make the recommendation because Mr. Thomas did not
demonstrate his acceptance of responsibility. Instead, the government simply
argues by citation to Smith that it satisfied its obligation under the plea agreement
by including the memorialization of the promise in the PSR, which the district court
indicated it had reviewed prior to sentencing.
This argument is unpersuasive. A promise cannot be fulfilled merely by
noting that the promise has been made and then doing nothing else. As I have
-7-
noted, the plea agreement refers to a promise to commit a future act, stating that the
government “will recommend” the designated terms of sentencing. Rec. vol. 1,
doc. 69, at 6 (emphasis supplied). The PSR, on which the majority places critical
importance in concluding that the government satisfied its obligations under the
plea agreement, states only that “[t]he government also agreed to recommend the
defendant be given a reduction in the offense level if he demonstrates said
acceptance by virtue of his conduct up to and including the time of sentencing and
to recommend he be sentenced at the low end of the applicable guideline range.”
Rec. vol. VI, at 1-2.
Unlike some PSRs, the PSR in this case did not memorialize the government’s
recommendation; instead, the PSR only noted the government’s conditional promise
to recommend. And the district court at the change of plea hearing similarly only
noted that the government “will” recommend sentencing at the low range of the
guideline range. Further, there is no evidence that the plea agreement was attached
to the PSR that the district court reviewed prior to sentencing. Moreover, even if
the PSR was fresh in the judge’s mind at the sentencing hearing, the government’s
silence could be interpreted to mean that the government was not satisfied with Mr.
Thomas’s conduct up to and including the sentencing hearing. For all these
reasons, I would hold that the government breached the plea agreement.
-8-
Materiality
As the Supreme Court has explained, because the government breached the
plea agreement, “[w]e need not reach the question whether the sentencing judge
would or would not have been influenced had he known all the details of the
negotiations for the plea.” Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).
This is the rule because “the interests of justice and appropriate recognition of the
duties of the prosecution in relation to promises made in the negotiation of pleas of
guilty will be best served by remanding.” Id. See also United States v. Hayes, 946
F.2d 230, 233 (3d Cir. 1991) (“The doctrine that the government must adhere to its
bargain in the plea agreement is so fundamental that even though the government’s
breach is inadvertent and the breach probably did not influence the judge in the
sentence imposed, due process and equity require that the sentence be vacated.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis supplied).
However, even if we were required to perform a separate materiality analysis,
to my mind a broken promise by the government to recommend favorable
sentencing terms, in this case that Mr. Thomas be sentenced at the low end of the
applicable range, is clearly material. Government recommendations in favor of the
defendant at least some of the time influence courts. By denying Mr. Thomas the
promised recommendation, the government denied Mr. Thomas and the district
court the opportunity to gain the benefit of the government’s recommendation to
-9-
the court. Indeed, Mr. Thomas could have fared no worse: following the
government’s breach, the district court, having not received the recommendation,
sentenced Mr. Thomas to a prison term of 24 months, the absolute high end of the
applicable range.
Remedy
Because an application of ordinary contract principles leads me to conclude
that the government materially breached the agreement, I would remand for
resentencing and direct that government to recommend at sentencing that the
district court sentence Mr. Thomas at the low end of the 18-24 month range. See
Allen v. Hadden, 57 F.3d 1529, 1534 (10th Cir. 1995) (“If the court finds that the
government breached the plea agreement, the court must remand the case either for
specific performance or withdrawal of the defendant’s guilty plea.”).
Conclusion
Today’s decision is a step in the wrong direction. Future defendants plea
bargaining in this circuit will have less reason to trust the government’s promises.
As we recognized in United States v. Cooper, 70 F.3d 563, 567 (10th Cir. 1995),
“[i]t is critical that the government stand by its agreements . . . . in order to
encourage plea bargaining.” Further, requiring that the government follow through
on promises that it makes to recommend certain sentencing terms relieves the
already burdened district courts from having to elicit or acknowledge
-10-
recommendations that the government has promised it “will” make. Most
fundamentally, “prosecutorial conduct should set the ethical standard; minimally it
should comply with the law.” Id. (emphasis supplied). Because I believe that the
government failed to comply with the legal obligation it assumed in entering into a
plea agreement with Mr. Thomas, I respectfully dissent.
-11-
United States v. Werner
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Date filed: 2003-01-23
Citations: 317 F.3d 1168
Copy CitationsCombined Opinion