Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05206/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05206-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James R. Adelman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

' j FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE.Vtited StateS Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

NOV 5 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-5206 

v. (D.C. No. 88-CR-48-01-C) 

(N. D. of Oklahoma) 

JAMES ADELMAN 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

The parties to this appeal have indicated that oral argument 

is not desired. After examining the briefs and the appellate 

record, this three-judge panel has also determined that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the government, James R. 

Adelman pleaded guilty to one count of a 153-count indictment 

charging conspiracy to embezzle, 18 u.s.c. SS 371 and 151, another 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-5206 Document: 010110047514 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 1 
' 

• count charging false accounting, 18 u.s.c. § 152, and five counts 

charging embezzlement by trustee, 18 u.s.c. § 153. In return, the 

government dismissed all remaining counts of the 153-count indictment. 

A provision in the plea agreement was that Adelman's 

11sentencing will be in the sole discretion of the sentencing judge 

in this matter." 

Prior to sentencing, the 

combined Sentencing Memorandum 

government filed a very lengthy 

and Memorandum in Support of 

Criminal Fines and Restitution. In that memorandum the government 

strongly suggested that Adelman's punishment should reflect the 

seriousness of his offenses, and also serve as a "deterrent for 

anyone contemplating crime by misuse of the Bankruptcy Court 

system and breach of the public trust." Adelman filed an even 

longer response to the government's memorandum, wherein he took 

exception to much of the government's memorandum. However, there 

was no suggestion that by filing a memorandum the government had 

somehow breached the plea agreement. The government thereafter 

filed a reply to Adelman's response. 

On February 27, 1989, Adelman was sentenced to five years 

imprisonment on the conspiracy charge, five years imprisonment on 

the false accounting charge to be served consecutively to the 

five-year sentence imposed on the conspiracy count, and two years 

imprisonment on one of the embezzlement counts to be served 

consecutively to the sentences on the conspiracy and false accounting counts, and two years on each of the remaining four 

embezzlement counts to be served concurrently with the other 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5206 Document: 010110047514 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 2 
I .. 

sentences. So, Adelman was effectively given twelve years 

imprisonment. * 

On June 26, 1989, Adelman filed a Motion to Modify and/or 

Reduction of Sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). In that 

motion, Adelman continued to challenge the government's calculation of the loss occasioned by his actions and also attempted to 

show that if he had been sentenced under the guidelines, his 

sentence would have been less than the twelve-year sentence he had 

received. The government filed a response thereto in which it 

objected to any sentence reduction and pointed out that Adelman's 

guideline calculation was inaccurate. Adelman's Motion to Reduce 

Sentence was denied. 

Adelman next filed a Motion to Reconsider wherein he asked 

the district court to reconsider its earlier denial of his Rule 35 

motion. As grounds for his Motion to Reconsider, Adelman alleged 

that by resisting his earlier Rule 35 motion the government had 

breached the plea agreement. In this regard, Adelman asserted 

that the provision in the plea agreement that his sentencing would 

be in the "sole discretion" of the sentencing judge necessarily 

carried with it a promise by the government that it would take "no 

position" at any phase of the sentencing process. Adelman also 

asked that his Motion to Reconsider be assigned to a different 

judge. The sentencing judge denied the Motion to Reconsider, and 

Adelman appeals from that order. 

* This is a pre-guideline case. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-5206 Document: 010110047514 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 3 
t 

,, 

We reject the suggestion that the provision in the plea 

agreement that Adelman's sentencing would be in the "sole discretion" of the sentencing judge carried with it a promise by the 

government that it would take "no position" at Adelman's sentencing, or at the hearing on Adelman's subsequent motion to reduce 

sentence. At sentencing, the government did take a strong position, and Adelman made no claim that in so doing the government 

breached the plea agreement. Such indicates rather clearly the 

understanding of the parties at the time of sentencing. 

This is not the situation where the government in the plea 

agreement agreed to take "no position" at sentencing, and then 

later took a position at sentencing. Hence, the cases relied on 

by Adelman, United States v. Corsentino, 685 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 

1982) and United States v. Stolon, 561 F. Supp 63 (E.D. N.Y. 

1983), are inapposite. 

Nor is United States v. Greenwood, 812 F.2d 632 (10th Cir. 

1987) of any aid to Adelman. In Greenwood, the defendant, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to one count of a twocount indictment, and the government agreed, inter alia, that it 

"would not indicate to the court in any manner that Mr. Greenwood 

should be incarcerated. . " Id. at 635. However, at sentencing, the prosecutor made a lengthy statement concerning the 

seriousness of the offense, and the like. The district court held 

that the prosecutor had not breached the plea agreement since he 

had not used the word "incarceration." 

concluded that the government had by 

sentencing breached the plea agreement. 

-4-

On appeal, we reversed and 

its statement made at 

Appellate Case: 89-5206 Document: 010110047514 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 4 
~ 

I 

, 

The case at bar differs from Greenwood and others cited supra 

in that the government made no promise to Adelman to refrain from 

taking a position with regard to sentencing or resentencing. As 

such, there was no breach of the plea agreement. 

Judgment affirmed. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. Mcwilliams 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-5206 Document: 010110047514 Date Filed: 11/05/1990 Page: 5