US v. Carter: Carter was involved in a pair of robberies along with an accomplice who was never caught. He eventually pleaded guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery for one robbery and brandishing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence for the other. As part of a plea agreement, Carter agreed to waive his right to challenge his sentence “on any ground” on direct appeal. At sentencing, the district court asked Carter to identify the mystery accomplice, stating it was “a very critical part of this Court’s decision.” Carter declined, and counsel noted there was no cooperation requirement in the plea agreement. The district court rejected Carter’s request for a variance and imposed a sentence of 147 months in prison, the top of the advisory Guideline range.
Carter filed an appeal, arguing that the district court improperly enhanced Carter’s sentence in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal. After initially concluding that the appeal waiver was valid, the court then went on to conclude that it was enforceable in this case. The court noted that the “real disagreement” in the case was “whether the Fifth Amendment challenge constitutes one of the limited grounds for which Carter retained appellate rights.” Ultimately, the court found that Carter could not show either a violation of a constitutional right that was “firmly established” at sentencing or the use of a “constitutional impermissible factor.” Particularly, the court held that Carter had not been placed in a “classic penalty situation” where he had to choose between remaining silent and getting a harsher sentence because “the district court did not expressly state, nor did it even imply, that Carter’s assertion of his privilege . . . would lead to a harsher sentence.” In addition, the district court “had no substantial reason to believe that Carter’s identification of his accomplice would be incriminating beyond the plea itself.”
No comments:
Post a Comment