## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 27,200 6

Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee , v. K E L V IN B . S C O T T , J R . , D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t . N o. 05- 6082

ORDE R DE NYI NG P ET I TI ON F OR P ANE L R EHE ARI NG
B efor e KELLY , C ir c u it J u d g e , HOLL OW AY and EBEL , S eniorC i rcui tJudg es.
T h e U n ited S ta tes h a s filed a p e tit io n fo r p a n e l re h e a rin g . T h e m o tio n is deni ed. T he pet i t i on has , how ever , br oughtt o t he cour t ’ s at t ent i on t w o er r or s i n t he publ i s hed opi ni on w hi ch t he cour tw i l l cor r ect . A ccor di ngl y , t he at tached opi ni on is t o b e fil ed an d su b sti tuted fo r t h e o p inion o ri g inally fil ed o n Ju ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 6
. IT IS S O OR DE RE D. E n ter e d fo r th e c o u rt,

E l i s abeth A
. Shum aker C lerk o f C o u rt

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 3 1,200 6 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee,
v. K E L V IN B . S C O T T , J R ., D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 6082

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O M A

( D. C. No. 0 4 - CR - 7 5 - F)
San fo r d C. Coa t s , As s i s t a n t Uni t e d St a t e s At t o r n e y ( a n d J o h n C. Ri c h t e r , U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , on t he br i ef) , O kl ahoma C i t y , O kl ahoma, forPl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee D avi d A ut r y , O kl ahoma C i t y , O kl ahoma, forD efe ndant- A ppel l ant
B efor e KELLY , C ir c u it J u d g e , HOLL OW AY and EBEL , S eniorC i rcui tJudg es.
HOLL OW AY , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge.

D efe ndant
- A ppel l an t K el vi n B . Scot t , J r . , appea l s hi s s ent ence i m pos ed fo ll o w in g a p le a o f

g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f tra n sp o rta tio n o f

a ju v e n ile in in ter sta te
co m m e rc e fo r t h e p u rpo se o f p rostitu ti o n in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S
. C
. § 2 4 2 3 (a).- 2 -

Fol l ow i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he dist r i ctcour ts ent ence d M r . Scot tt o 120
m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t an d th re e y e a rs’ su p e rv ise d re lea se . O n a p p e a l, M r. S c o tt cont ends that the di s t r i ctcour ter r ed i n: ( 1) r et r oact i vel yappl y i ng B ookerv. Uni t ed St at es , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , i n vi ol at i on of ex p o st fa c to pr i nci pl es ; i n ( 2) appl y i ng
v u l n e r a b l e v i c t i m a n d l e a d e r s h i p s e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e me n t s u n d e rU. S
. S
. G. §§ 3A 1. 1(b)( 1), 3B 1. 1(c) ; and i n (3) not a n a ly z in g the app l i cabil i t yof these
s ent enci ng enhanc ement s under a re as onabl e doubt s t andar d. H e al s o cont ends t hat (4) the d istri ct c o u rt ’s s en tenc e o f 1 2 0 m o n ths is un rea so n ab le un d er B oo ker and 18 U . S. C
. § 3553( a) ; and ( 5) t he gover nm entbr eac hed t he pl ea a gr eementand w ai ved anyar gum ent s i n s uppor tof a s ent enci ng i ncr eas e due t o i t s fai l ur e t o obj ectt o t he p re s e n te n c e re p o rt (P S R ). W e h av e jurisdicti o n g ran ted b y 2 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S
. C
. § 3 7 4 2 (a). W e a re c o n v in c e d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d id b re a c h th e p lea a g re e m e n t w ith D efe ndant
- A ppel l antand ac cor di ngl yw e must r ever s e and r emand for r es ent enci ng.

I A s the par t i es ant i ci pat ed i n t he pl ea a gr eement , t he bas e offens e l evel w as d e t e r mi n e d t o b e 1 9
. T h e d e fe n s e a d mi t t e d t h a t t wo i n c r e a s e s we r e a p p l i c a b l e – t wo l evel s beca us e t he vi ct i m w as bet w een ages 12 and 16, and fourl evel s beca us e fr aud h a d b e e n u s e d t o e n t i c e t h e v i c t i m i n t o p r o s t i tu t i o n . T h e g o v e r n me n t a g r e e d t o a t wo- 3 -

l evel decr eas e foracc ept ance o f r es pons i bi l i t y , r es ul t i ng i n an offens e l evel of 23. T h at o ffen se l evel , w i t h defe ndant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egor yof I , r es ul t ed i n a presum pti ve g uidel i nes range o f 46 t o 5 7 m on t hs. W hen t he pr ese n te nce r epor tw as i s s ued, i tadopt ed t hes e admi s s i ons and agr eement s of t he par t i es . T he r epor tconcl uded t hatt he sen tenc i ng r ange w as as ant i ci pat ed byt he par t i es , 46 t o 57 m onths, b ec ause the pr obat i on offi ce found no i nfor m at i on t o w ar r antanyaddi t i onal adj us t m ent s , an d n o evi dence s ugges t i ng t hat
a d e p a rtu re in e it h e r w a y w o u ld b e a p p ro p ria te. T h e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t o bjec t to the re p o rt , an d d efen d an t’ s o n lyo bjecti o n s w ere m in o r. O n e o f d efen d an t’ s
o bj e c t i o n s wa s s u s t a i n e d b yt h e c o u r t . No n e o f t h e m i s a ti s s u e n o w. T h e d istri ct j u d g e w as c learlyu n sati sfied , an d h e issu ed three o rde rs be fo re th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g . T h e first o rd e r a le r te d th e p a rties th a t th e c o u rt w a n ted to
co n side r t h e p o ssibil ityo f o ffen se lev e l in c re a s es fo r a v u lnera b le victi m an d fo r a l eade r s hi p r ol e i n t he offens e. T he gov ern m en t r es ponded byfi l i ng a pape rs t y l ed “G over nm ent ’ s M ot i on For U pw ar d D epar tur e and Sent enci ng M emora ndum
. ” In t hi s fi l i ng, t he gover nm ent advoca t ed offens e l evel i ncr eas es on t he bas es s ugges t ed byt he cour t– t hatt he vi ct i m w as unus ual l y vul ner abl e and thatdefe ndanthad pl ay ed a l eade r s hip r ol e i n t he offens e – and a l s o ar gued foran upw ar d depar tur e fr om t he
s ent enci ng r ange r es ul t i ng fr om appl i cat i on of t he G ui del i nes . T he cour t ’ s nextor der
ca m e righ t after B ookerand i nvi t ed b ri efing o n t hatdeci s i on, as w el l as di s cus s i ng- 4 -

t he s t at e of t he r ecor d and s om e r el evant cour t deci s i ons on t he t w o adj us t m ent s t hat the ju d g e h ad b rou g h t up in the ea rl ier ord er. T h e third o f th e s e o rd e rs w as v ery b rie f a n d m e re lyin fo rm e d th e p a rties th a t th e ju d g e w a s c o n sid e rin g e x e r c is in g h is
new l ygr ant ed di s cr et i on t o i m pos e a s ent ence l ongert han t hatw hi ch h ad bee n cal culat ed u nd er the ad vis orygu i deli nes. A ts ent enci ng, t he cour tr ej ect ed defendant ’ s ar gum entt hatt he B ookerr emedy ( J us t i ce B r ey er ’ s opi ni on m aki ng t he gui del i nes advi s or yonl y ) coul d notbe appl i ed t o him becau se o f du e process ex p o st fa c to cons i der at i ons . T he cour tal s o hel d t hat t he fa ct s s uppor t i ng s ent ence enhanc ement s need onl ybe pr oved bya pr eponder ance of t he evi dence
. T he governm entpr oduced t es t i m ony fr om t he cas e agentr egar di ng th e o ffe n se c o n d u c t. T h e ju d g e th e n fo u n d th a t th e v ictim w a s e sp e c iallyv u ln e ra b le and t hatanot herpr os t i tut e had pa r t i ci pat ed i n t he offens e conduct
. T he l at t erfi ndi ng
w as a nec es s ar ypr edi cat e fort he cour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatdefe ndant had pl ay ed a l eade r s hi p r ole in t he offens e. T hes e fi ndi ngs i ncr eas ed t he advi s or ygui del i nes
r ange f r om 46- 57 m ont hs t o t he r ange o f 7 0- 87 m ont hs
. T he cour tr ej ect ed t he gover nm ent ’ s ar gum ent for an upw ar d depar tur e underU . S. S. G
. § 5K 2. 4, fi ndi ng t hat th e f r a u d u s e d to in v e ig le th e v ictim in to p ro stitu tio n h a d a lre a d yb e e n tak e n in to
acc ounti n an admi t t ed offens e cha r act er i s t i c. E v en tho u g h the ju d g e rejected the g o v ern m en t’ s arg u m en t fo r up w ard d ep arture u n d er th e g u idelines , h e e x erc ised h is discreti o n u n d er the n o w ad v isory- 5 -

gui del i nes s cheme t o i m p os e a s ent ence of 120 m ont hs , 38% hi ghert han t he t op of t he adj us t ed gui del i nes r ange.

II A A s w e demonst r at e bel ow , upon cons i der at i on of t he re cor d of t he pr ocee di ngs
conce r n i n g t h e p l e a a g r e e me n t , we a r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t t h e g o v e r n me n t b r e a c h e d t he p lea a g re e m e n t. Itis w e ll se ttl e d th a t w e m u st in ter p re t th e a g re e m e n t ac c o r d in g to th e d e fe n d a n t’ s re a s o n a b le u n d e rs ta n d in g o f its te rm s . See, e. g. , Uni t ed S tat es v. Hand , 9 1 3 F .2 d 8 5 4 , 8 5 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. G r eenwood , 812 F. 2d 632, 635 ( 10t h C i r . 1987)
. T he pl ea a gr eement pr ovi ded t hat bas ed upon “t he i nfor m at i on t hat i s know n t o t he par t i es on t he dat e t hat t hi s agr eement i s exec ut ed, the p o s i t i ons t heyexpec tt o t ake a ts ent enci ng w i t h r es p ec t to the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w i l l i ncl ude” t hat : ( 1) t he offe ns e occurr ed befor e A pr i l 30, 2003; ( 2) t he offe ns e i nvol ved a c om m er ci al sex actand t he us e of c oer ci on; ( 3) t he vi ct i m ’ s age
w as betw een 12 a nd 16 y ear s ; and ( 4) t he defendants houl d r ece i ve a 2 l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m ent for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . A pp. of D efe ndant
- A ppel l ant
a t 6 9 -7 0
. D efen d an t con tend s tha t th e a g ree m en t w as b rea ch ed b ec au se th e g o v ern m en t’ s agr eementt o t hes e t er m s cl ear l yi m pl i ed t hatt he governm entw oul d n o t ar gue for-6-

o t h e rs e n t e n c e e n h a n c i n g fa c t o r s , o ra tl e a s tth a ts u c h a n i n fe r e n c e s h o u l d b e d r a wn b e c a u se th a t w a s h is re a so n a b le e x p e c tatio n f ro m th e a g re e m e n t. W e a g re e th a t th is is th e p lain lyre a so n a b le in ter p re tatio n o f th e a g re e m e n t.

B D es pi t e i t s obl i gat i on nott o do s o , the gover nm entdi d ar gue foraddi t i onal enhanc ement s and t her efor e cl ear l ybr eac hed t he agr eement . T hu s, i n t he “G over nm ent ’ s M ot i on for U pw ar d D epar tur e and Sent enci ng M emora ndum , ” A pp.
o f D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t at 1 2 5 -1 3 4 , t h e g o v e rn m e n t as se rte d th a t th e e sp e c ially
v u ln e ra b le v ictim e n h a n c e m e n t “ sh o u ld b e a p p lied , an d d e fe n d a n t’s s e n ten c e sh o u ld be enha nced a ccor di ngl y . ” Id
. at132. A nd t he s ame submi s s i on s ai d, as t o t he app l i c a t i o n o f

a n e n h a n c e me n tfo ra l e a d e r s h i p r o l e i n t h e o ffe n s e , t h a tt h e e v i d e n ce “s how s t hatdefe ndan tw as a l eade rof a c r i m i nal ent erpr i s e under§ 3B 1. 1( c)
. ” Id
. a t 1 3 3
. A tt he sentenci ng heari ng , t he p rosecut or ass ert ed that“t he C ou rtshou ld adjust t h e d efen d an t’ s p o ints” to e n h an ce the o ffen se lev el fo r t h e v ict im ’s
v u ln era b il ityan d that the o ffen se lev el also “ sh o u ld b e a djusted u p w ard ly ” fo r a l eade r s hi p r ol e i n t he offense. (Tra ns cr i ptof Sent enci ng Pr ocee di ngs of M ar ch 4, 2 0 0 5 a t 6 9 -7 0 .) T he governm entdi d r es er ve t he r i ghti n the p lea agr eementt o t ake other po si t i on s if

new fac t s w er e deve l oped. B utt hatdi d nothappen, and the governm entT h e g o v e rn m e n t as se rts th a t i t w a s o n lyp re c lu d e d f ro m m a k in g a rg u m e n ts 1 t hat w oul d confl i ct w i t h t he expr es s pr ovi s i ons of t he pl ea a gr eement . T hi s pos i t i on i s cont r ar yt o t he t eac hi ng of Handand G r eenwoodt hatpl ea a gr eement s m us tbe cons t r ued cons i s t ent l yw i th the defendant ’ s r eas onabl e under s t andi ng of t he agr eement ’ s t er m s . A s not ed, t he gover nm ent “ca nnot r el y upon a ‘ r i gi dl y li t er al cons t r uct i on of t he l anguage ’ of t he agr eement. . . . ” Hand , 913 F. 2d at856. -7- on appea l does not s o cont end. I ns t ead, t he governm entar gued bel ow i n favorof t he enhanc ement s t hat t he di s t r i ctj udge had s ugges t ed su a sp o n te – e sp e c iallyv u ln e ra b le vi ct i m and l eade r s hi p r ol e i n t he offens e – and e ven w entbey ond t hatt o ar gue foran upw ar d depar tur e, an ar gum entt hat t he di s t r i ct j udge r ej ect ed. O n appea l , des pi t e t he fac t t hatn o n e w fa c t s wer e d e v e l o p e d , t h e g o v e r n me n te x p r e s s l ya d mi t s t h a tt he p rose cu tor di d argue addi t i onal pos i t i ons for t he enhanc ement s at the s ent enci ng hear i ng. B r i ef of

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee at 4 3 ( “The fac tt hatt he governm entt ook addi t i onal pos i t i ons att he s ent en cing s t age of thes e pr ocee di ngs i n no w aybr eac hed the p lea ag ree m en t. ”). S e e a ls o id
. at47. 1 T he pl ea a gr eementw as cl ear l y br eac hed and t he s ent ence befor e us s houl d not be affi rm ed. T he funda m ent al and di s pos i t i ve pr i nci pl e w as s t at ed byC hi ef J us t i ce B ur ger : “[W ] hen a pl ea r es t s i n any s i gni fi cantdegr ee on a pr om i s e oragr eementof t h e p rose cu t or , s o t hati tcan be s ai d t o be par tof t he i nducementorcons i der at i on,
s u c h p r o m is e m u s t b e fu lfill e d .” Sa ntobel l o v. New York , 404 U
. S. 257, 262 ( 1971) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ) . F u rth e r, in f u lfill in g its p ro m ise , the g o v e rn m e n t “c a n n o t re ly upon a ‘ r i gi dl yl i t er al cons t r uct i on of t he l anguage ’ of t he agr eement. . . . ” Uni t edW e do notsu g g est t hatt he governm ents houl d have i gnor ed t he or derfr om 2 t he di s t r i ctcour tforbr i efi ng on t he addi t i onal en h an ce m ent s . H ow ever , t he g o v e rn m e n t co u ld h a v e re sp o n d e d w ith o u t b re a c h in g e ith e r th e p lea a g re e m e n t o r its dut yof ca ndort o t he cour tbypr ovi di ng acc ur at e ans w er s t o t he cour t ’ s quer i es and expl ai ni ng i t s obl i gat i ons under t he pl ea a gr eementw i t houtexpr es s l yar gui ng fort he up w ard enh ancem ents . T he rel evan tpo rt i on of the plea agreem ent s t at es: 3 H ow ever , s ubj ectt o t he t er m s an d condi t i ons of t hi s pl ea a gr eement (p a rticu lar ly th e c o n d iti o n s c o n c e rn in g [ U .S .S .G .] § 1 B 1 .8 se t o u t in par ag rap h 1 1) , t he U ni t ed St at es expr es s l yr es er ves the r i ghtt o t ake pos i t i ons t hatdevi at e fr om t he for egoi ng sti p ul at i ons , agr eement s , or r ecomm endat i ons i n t he event t hat m at er i al cr edi bl e evi dence r equi r i ng such a d eviat i on i s d isc ov ered du ri ng t he co urse of t he U nit ed S t at es’ (c o n tin u e d ...) -8- St at es v. Hand , 9 1 3 F. 2 d 8 5 4 , 8 5 6 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 0) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Sh o rte e th , 8 8 7 F . 2 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 6 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 8 9 )). 2 III A W e t ur n t o ar gum ent s and author i t i es w hi ch ar e offer ed as j us t i fi cat i ons fort he g ov ernm ent’ s cond uct. T he g ov ernm ent has ar gu ed thati t s absence o f obj ect i on s to th e P S R d id n o t p re c lu d e th e g o v e rn m e n t f ro m p ro v id in g th e d istric t j u d g e w ith
a p p lica b le fa c ts a n d law , n o r w a s th e g o v e rn m e n t b a rre d f ro m a rg u in g fo r c e rta in
en h an ce m en ts n o t in the init ial P S R . S ee B ri ef o f P lai n ti ff-A p p ell ee at 47
. H o w ev er,
as not ed t he governm entm er el yr es er ved t he r i ghti n t he pl ea a gr eementt o t ake other posit ion s if

new fac t s w er e deve l oped, and t hatdi d noth a p p e n . A p p . o f D e fe n d a n tA ppel l antat70. 3(
. . . cont i nued) 3 i nves t i gat i on s ubs equentt o t he s i gni ng of t hi s agr eementorar i s es fr om s our ces i ndepende nt of t he U ni t ed S t at es , i ncl udi ng t he U
. S. Pr obat i on O ffi ce. Id. -9- W e not e al s o t hat the d ist r i ctj udge att he s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs of M ar ch 4, 20 05 , s t a t e d t ha tt he pu rpo r t e d d e fa ul tbyt he go ve r nmen t i n no t obj e c t i ng t o the PSR

“ a p p lies o n ly to th e fa c tu a l n a rra tiv e in th e P S R . . . w h ich d o e s n o t a p p ly w ith
re sp e c t t o th e p ro b a tio n o ffice r’s c o n c lu sio n a s to th e a p p lica b ili tyo f p o ss ib le enhanc ement s . ” ( A pp. of D efe ndant
- A ppel l antat 1 8 0
. ) I n ot herw or ds , t he di s t r i ct j ud g e said t hatt he governm entcoul d r es pond t o t he j udge’ s r eques tbeca us e he w as
n o t cont empl at i ng anys uppl ement at i on of t he facts u nder l y i ng t he dec i s i ons t o be
m ade. T he j udge had e xpl i ci t l yas ked foradvoca cy . O n appea l t he governm ent
r ep eat s w hatt he di s t r i ctj udge s ai d att he s ent enci ng hear i ng. M or eovert he gover n me n ta s s e r t s t h a ti twas n o tp r e c l u d e d f r o m a r g u i n g fo rt h e a d d i t i onal enh ancem ents : [T]he gover nm ent ’ s abs ence of obj ect i ons di d notprec lud e i tfr om p ro v id in g th e d is tr i c t c o u rt w ith th e a p p lic a b le fa c ts a n d la w , and a rg u i n gf

o r s e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e men ts n o t c o n t a i n e d i n th e o r ig i n a lPSR. B rie f o f P lain tiff-A p p e llee a t 4 7 ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h u s, th e g o v e rn m e n t ad m its
ar gui ng for t he addi t i onal s ent enci ng enhanc ement s w hi ch w as a cl earvi ol at i on of t he i m pl i ci tobl i gat i on of t he governm entnott o do s o. W e ar e al s o per s uaded byt he ana l y s i s i n Uni t ed Stat es v. A l l en , 434 F. 3d, 1166-10-

( 9t h C i r . 2006) , w hi ch i s qui t e s i m i l art o Handi n t he ci r cumst ance s and di s pos i t i on of t he i s s ue of w het her t he pr os ecut i on br eac hed t he pl ea a gr eement . A s i n Hand , t he pr os ecut ori n Al l en scru pul ous l yabi ded byt he t er m s of t he agr eement , s uppl y i ng fa c tu a l in fo rm a tio n to th e c o u r t o n r e q u e st, b u t ad h e rin g to h e r a g re e m e n t to
r ecomm e n d a c e r t a i n o ffe n s e l e v e l i n s p i t e o f a d d i t i o n a l fa c t s whi c h wou l d h ave
su p p o rte d a h ig h e r o ffe n se lev e l. T h e N in th C irc u it ca u tio n e d th a t an a ttem p t to i nfl uence t he sen t enci ng j udge t o i m pos e a hi ghers ent ence t han t he governm enthad
a g re e d to re c o m m e n d in a p le a a g re e m e n t w o u ld h a v e v io l a t e d t h e a g re e m e n t. See als o Uni t ed Stat es v. A hn , 231 F. 3d 26 ( D . C
. C i r . 2000) , w her e t he pr os ecu torw as careful no tt o a r gu e fo ra n e nh a nc e menti n r e s po nd i ng t o t he di s t r i c tc ou r t ’ s r e qu e st fori nfor m at i on. I n s u m, we a r e p e r s u a d e d t h a t u n d e r t h e p r i n c i p l es of Sant obel l o a n d its pr ogenyw e mustrev erse and re m and forr es ent enci ng s i nce the fa ul tr es t s on t he g o v e rn m e n t. S e e S a n to b e llo , 404 U
. S. at263. S in c e w e m u s t r e v e rs e o n th is b a s is , w e d o n o t r e a c h o th e r i s s u e s .. I T I S S O O RDERED .