US v. Craig: Craig pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, part of a plea agreement in which the Government agreed to dismiss three other drug-related counts. One provision of the plea agreement contained a stipulation of Craig’s conduct that addressed only his unlawful possession of a firearm. At the plea hearing, however, the a police officer testified (on cross examination) that the gun had been stolen. During the colloquy with the district court, the Government stated that the stipulation was the “total relevant conduct” for the case, an understanding that Craig said he shared.
The probation officer calculated the advisory Guideline range as 57 to 71 months, based on the nature of Craig’s prior convictions, but did not include any additional enhancements. The Government objected, seeking an enhancement because the gun was stolen and because it was possessed in connection with another felony offense (possession of drugs). The district court rejected Craig’s objections and applied the enhancements, boosting the Guideline range to 100 to 120 months (the statutory maximum) and imposing a sentence of 100 months in prison.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Craig’s sentence, agreeing with Craig that the Government had breached the plea agreement when it advocated for the two Guideline enhancements. The provision in the plea agreement, along with the representations during the plea hearing, clearly limited Craig’s relevant conduct, even if the Government might have intended otherwise. Nor did another provision of the plea agreement allowing the Government to correct any inaccuracies, or its duty of candor to the court, apply since the Government went beyond any of that into advocacy for the enhancements.
No comments:
Post a Comment