2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
6-27-2005 

# U SA v . H o dge P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-1817

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . H od g e " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 909. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/9091 P RE CE DE NT I AL
I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o. 02- 1817 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. D E V IN H O D G E , A ppel l ant

______________ O n A pp eal from t he D i stri ctC ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s,

D i vi s i on of St
. T hom as and St
. J ohn D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le T h o m as K
. M o o re D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 99- C R
- 00006- 03

________________ A r gued A pr i l 20, 2005

________________ B e f o re : N Y G A A R D , R E N D E L L , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: J une 27, 2005)2 Jo rg e E . R iv e ra -O rtiz P. O
. B ox 1845 M anat i , Puer t o R i co 00674- 1845

A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant N el s on L
. J ones O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney U nit ed S t at es C ou rtho use 5500 V et er ans B ui l di ng, St e. 260 C har l ot t e A m al i e, St
. T hom as

U SV I , 00802- 6924 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee

_________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________________ S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge
. D evi n H odge pl eade d gui l t yt o m ur der i ng t he ow nerof a St
. T hom as j ew el r ys t or e. D evi n’ s br ot her , I r vi ne, pl eade d gui l t yt o t he s ame cr i m e as par tof a “ packa ge dea l
. ” The b ro th e rs w e re se n ten c e d a t th e sa m e p ro c e e d in g to life in p riso n b yth e D istric t C o u rt o f th e V irg in Isla n d s. D e v in ar gues on appea l t hatt he governm entbr eac hed i t s pl ea agr eement , and thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tconduct ed a de fi ci ent pl ea c ol l oquyi n par tbeca us e i tw as unaw ar e thathi s pl ea w as l i nked t o hi s br ot her ’ s . W e hol d t hatt he governm entDevin also a rgues on appe al that the District Court 1 erroneously

adjusted his sentenc e upwa rd under Blakely

v. W ashington , 524 U.S. 296 (2004). In the wakeof Booke r v. United States , 125 S. Ct . 738 (2005), nor mally we would remand his case to the D istrict Court for re -sentenc ing. See U nited States v . D av is , 4 0 7 F
. 3 d 1 6 2 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . As we ha ve explained, ho we ve r, weremand

fo r re -s e ntenc ingor

ple a wi thd ra wal be c a us e weho ld t hat th eg ov e rnme nt b re a c he d it s p le a a gre e me nt w ith Devin in its allocution at his sentencing . To fore close the g overnme nt from repeatingthe infirm languag e at apossible resentenc ing, w e will dispose of De vin’s brea ch-of -plea argument now on the merits rather tha n rema nding sole ly

under Booke r . 3 b rea ch ed it s p lea a g ree m en t, an d w e w il l vac ate D ev in’s se n ten c e a n d re m a n d f

o r re -se n ten c in g o r w ith d ra w a l o f h is p lea . W e f

u rth e r h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t p lain ly erri n conduct i ng D evi n’ s pl ea c ol l oquy . W e w r i t e t o pr ovi de gui dance fort he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d a new pl ea c ol l oquybe re q u ire d o n re m a n d , an d f o r o th e r d istric t co u rts f a c e d w ith t he s ens i t i ve t as k of t es t i ng vol unt ar i nes s i n packa ge dea l pl ea si tuati on s. 1 I. In M a y1 9 9 9 , a f

e d e ra l g ra n d ju ryin d icte d D e v in H odge, I r vi ne H odge, and a thi r d defe ndantform ur derof the o w n e r o f th e E m e ra ld L a d yJe w e lryS to re in C h a rlo tteTh e sec ri me s ma y bere late d to e arl ie r p ro c e e din g s in thi s 2 Court ag ainst Irvine for

robber y of the samestore thre e year s earlier. At De vin’s sentenc ing, theg overnme nt stated that the mur d e r atth eE m e r a l d

L a dy w a s p r o mp t e d

b y D e v i n ’ s “ f

ant a s y” that “he c ould make a dif ferencein his brother’s c ase by killing another human being .” We af

firmed the c onviction and sentenc e of Irvine for

arme d robber

y at the Emerald L ady

in United States v. Hodge , 211 F.3d 74, 75 ( 3d Cir. 2000). The orig inal indictment and first super sedingindictment 3 arenot in the rec ord. In the Second Super sedingIndictment, the Hodg e brothe rs and their

co-de fenda

nt werecharg ed with (1) interferingwith commerc e under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, (2) possession of a f irea rm duringa crime of violenceunder 18 U .S.C. § 924(c) (1), a

nd (3) f irst degreemurder under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1). Eac h count of the indictment also alleg ed aidingand abe tting under 18 U.S.C. § 2. T h e T h i rdS u

p er s ed i n g In d i ctm entch ar gedth e H o d ge 4 brothers a nd their co- defendant with (1) interfering w ith commerce under 18 U .S.C. § 1951, (2) first degreemurder under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1) , and (3) tamperingwith a witness by killing under

18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1) (A), ( 2)(A)
. 4 A m al i e, St
. T hom as , and the theftof j ew el r yfr om t he s t or e. 2 D evi n pl eade d notgui l t yt o t hati ndi ct m ent , w hi ch w as s t y l ed a s a se c o n d su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t. In M a rc h 2 0 0 0 , D e v in 3 p lea d e d n o t g u iltyto a th ird , su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t. 4 A s ear l yas m i d- 1999, how ever , atD evi n’ s i ni t i at i on, D evin and t he g ov ernm ent w ere engag ed in i ntense5 di s cus s i ons abouta pl ea ba r gai n. T he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney w ro te in Ju ly1 9 9 9 th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s “ se rio u sly cons i der i ng” as ki ng t hatD evi n pl ead gui l t yt o fi r s tdegr ee m ur derand pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n r el at i on t o a cr i m e of vi ol ence . I n r etur n, t he governm entw oul d r ecomm end that D evi n be s ent ence d att he l ow erend of the gui del i ne r ange and thathe r ece i ve the maxi m um , t hr ee- poi ntcr edi tfor extr aor di naryacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yundert he U ni t ed S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . In late-A p ri l 20 0 0 , the g o v ern m en t sen t D ev in’s at t or neya dr aftpl ea a gr eement . T he bodyof the cove rl et t er s t at ed: I am encl os i ng her ew i t h a copyof a pr opos ed pl ea a gr eementi n t he above capt i oned m att er. T h e p rop o sed ag ree m en t i s the en ti re in te g ra te d a g re e m e n t o f th e p a rt ie s . A ddi t i onal l y , t he pl ea of ferfr om t he governm enti s a l ock pl ea. T hati s , eac h of y our cl i ent s m us tacc eptt he pl ea a s a condi t i on of the governm ent ’ s acc ept ance of the pl ea. A s y o u k n o w , w h ile th e g o v e rn m e n t w ill rec o m m en d three p o ints of f f o r ex tr ao rdin ary acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yi f y ourcl i ent s eac h acc eptt he pl ea, t he governm enti s nott he fi nal arbi t erof w hatU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng6 G ui del i nes r ange the U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce maycal cul at e. A s s uch, t he governm ent m ak es n o rep rese n tat ion as to w h at pro b ati o n ’s [s i c] cal cul at i ons , ort he C our t ’ s pos i t i on on t hos e ca l cul at i ons , m aybe. F o u r d a y s a f

te r r e c e iv in g th is le tte r, D e v in p le a d e d g u ilty. T he w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementpr ovi ded thatD evi n w oul d pl ead g u il tyto f

ir st de g ree m u rde r, the s ec o n d co u n t of the T h ir d S u p e rse d in g In d ictm e n t. In re tu rn , the g o v e rn m e n t ag re e d to
“ se e k d ism iss a l” a t se n ten c in g o f th e re m a in in g c o u n ts, a n d to “r ecomm end that[D evi n] r ece i ve cr edi tforacc ept ance of re sp o n sib ili ty , as su m in g [ D e v in ] d o e s in f a c t cle a rly demonst r at e ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . ” W hi l e the g o v e rn m e n t re se rv e d its rig h t to a llo c u te a t se n ten c in g , it agr eed “ t o m ake no s peci fi c s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on ot her t han t o r eques tt hatt he s ent ence be w i t hi n t he gui del i ne r ange. ” T he fi nal par agr aph of the w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement pr ovi ded that“[t ] he part i es agr ee thatno ot herpr om i s es have been made i n connec t i on w i t h t hi s m at t er , and thatt hi s Pl ea A gr eementcons t i tut es t he ent i r e agr eementbetw een the U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyfort he D i s t r i ctof the V i r gi n I s l ands and the def

endanti n t he above

- r efe r ence d cas e. ” The agr eementdi d notm ent i on t hatD evi n’ s pl ea w as “l ocked, ” or ot herw i s e condi t i oned upon, I r vi ne’ s i dent i cal pl ea.7 L at ert hatm ont h, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a j oi nt change

- of- pl ea he ar i ng forD evi n and I r vi ne. D evi n’ s and I r vi ne’ s at t or ney s i ndi cat ed thatt he pl eas w er e i dent i cal and a g re e d to a “ d u a l in q u iry .” D istric t Ju d g e M o o re sta ted : E ven though y ou’ ve gone ove rand compl et ed an appl i cat i on t o pl ead gui l t y , eac h of y ou, and a s e p a r a t e p l e a a g r e e me n twh i c h i ta p p e a r s t o me has – w hen I l ooked ati tbefor e – has been s i gned, I w antt o m ake s ur e thatI have – thatt he fi l e r efl ect s w haty ou and y ourat t or ney s have g o n e o v e ri n d i v i d u a l l y. D evi n and I r vi ne r evi ew ed thei ri ndi vi dual appl i cat i ons and t hei rpl ea a gr eement s , and theyand thei rat t or ney s i ni t i al ed e a c h p a g e o f

th o s e d o c u m e n ts . J udge M oor e expl ai ned s epar at el yt o D evi n and I r vi ne t hatt he maxi m um penal t yforpl eadi ng gui l t yt o fi r s tdegr ee m u rd e r w a s d e a th . D e v in ’s a tto rn e yo b jec ted , n o tin g th a t h is cl i entw as a mi noratt he t i m e of the off ens e. W hen the g o v e rn m e n t co n c e d e d th a t th e d e a th p e n a ltyw o u ld n o t ap p ly t o D evi n, J udge M oor e r es ponded, “[a ] nd t he governm ent agr ees forbot h M r . I r vi ne H odge and M r . D evi n H odge, t hat death i s notan opt i on[?] ” The governm entagr eed. J udge M oor e s um m ar i zed that , “[s ] o foral l l egal and pr act i cal purpos es , i ns ofaras t hes e tw o defe ndant s , M r . I r vi ne H odge, Jr. a n d M r. D e v in H o d g e , the m a x im u m p o ss ib le s e n ten c e is8 l i fe i m pr i s onm ent [?] ” B ot h D evi n’ s and I r vi ne’ s couns el a g re e d
. J udge M oor e as ked D evi n w hetherhe under s t ood w hat th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d p ro m ise d to d o in re tu rn f o r h is g u ilty pl ea. D evi n ans w er ed, “Y es , y ourH onor . ” Pr om pt ed by Ju d g e M o o re , D e v in e lab o ra ted : “W e ll, I u n d e rsta n d it w o u ld be i n a gui del i ne r ange. A l s o I under s t and – w el l , t he cha r ges I ’ m bei ng char ged w i t h, w hatw oul d be dr opped. ” J udge M o o re su m m a riz e d : “S o th e g o v e rn m e n t, on c e w e a rriv e a t a gui del i ne r ange, t he governm entw i l l r ecomm end thatt he s ent ence be w i t hi n t hat , and they ’ r e notgoi ng t o as k forany par t i cul ars ent ence , exce ptt hati tbe w i t hi n t hatr ange. ” D evin answ ered i n the affi rm at i ve. “Is t here any t hing el se aboutt he agr eementy ou don’ tunder s t and thatw e nee d t o go over ?” Judge M oor e as ked. “N o, I under s t and eve r y t hi ng ful l y , ” D evi n ans w er ed. D evi n and I r vi ne w er e ques t i oned s epar at el yr egar di ng ri g h ts th eyw ere w aivin g b yp lead ing g u il ty . Ju d g e M o o re ask ed : “D o y o u u n d erstan d o u r sy stem , an d that y o u d o n ’t have t o gi ve [y ourr i ght s ] up, nobodycan f or ce y ou t o gi ve th e m u p , b u t if y o u d o w a iv e th o se rig h ts, w h a t y o u ’ll d o if y ou pl ead gui l t y , t hen they ’ l l be w ai ved and the nextt hi ng w i l l be the s ent enci ng?” T he br ot her s eac h ans w er ed aff i r m at i vel y . J udge M oor e adde d, “y ou under s t and al s o t hat y ou have the pr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on, w hi ch m eans t haty ou have the r i ghtt o s t and on y ourpl ea of not9 gui l t yand t o r emai n s i l ent . N o one ca n for ce y ou t o t es t i fy agai ns ty our s el f ort o gi ve otheri ncr i m i nat i ng t es t i m oni al evi dence , i ndi cat i ng t haty ou’ r e gui l t yas char ged?” A gai n, th e b ro th e rs a n s w e re d a f f ir m a tiv e ly. Judg e M oo re then ho m ed in on v olunt ari ness: T he C our t : N ow , y ou ar e the onl yones w ho

can pl ead – c hange y ourpl ea t o a charge, t his C ou nt 2, and i t ’s – y o u r plea [is] va li d o n lyif i t’ s y ourfr ee a nd vol unt aryact . So, M r . I r vi ne H odge, has any one fo rce d y o u in an yw ayto en ter a pl ea t o t hi s char ge? Irvine : N o , Y o u r H o n o r. T he C our t : A nybodyt hr eat ened y ou or

pr om i s ed y ou s om ethi ng? Irvine : N o , Y o u r H o n o r. T h e C o u rt : W h en I say“p rom ised , ” I’m

t al ki ng abouts om ethi ng ot her t han w hatw e w entoveri n t he p lea a g re e m e n t. Irvine : N o , Y o u r H o n o r. T h e C o u rt: H o w a b o u t y o u , M r. D e v in

H odge; any one for ced y ou,10 for ci ng y ou now orbr i ng anyki nd of pr es s ur e on y ou t o coer ce y ou i n changi ng y ourpl ea? H odge: N o, Y ourH onor . I ’ m doi ng i tof

m yow n. T h e C o u r t : I ’ m s o r r y? H o d g e : I d id it o n m yo w n w ill
. T h e C o u rt : A ll ri g h t. T h an k y o u . S o M r.

I r vi ne H odge, i f y ou w er e t o ent er a pl ea of gui l t y , i tw oul d be y our o w n f re e a n d v o lu n tar ya c t? Irvine : Y es, Y o u r H o n o r. T he C our t : M r . D evi n H odge, y ou’ ve al r eady

agr eed thatt hat ’ s t he ca s e? H o d g e : Y e s , Y o u r H o n o r. B ot h I r vi ne and D evi n pl eade d gui l t yt o t he s econd c ountof th e T h ir d S u p e rs e d in g In d ic tm e n t. I n M ar ch 2002, D evi n, I r vi ne and thei rco- defe ndant w er e s ent ence d att he s ame hear i ng. A tt he hea r i ng, J udge M o o re a n n o u n c e d th a t h e w o u ld h e a r a llo c u tio n s f ro m b o th D ev in an d Irvine
. D ev in’s att o rne yresp o n d ed : “Y o u r H o n o r, I hope byy ourhear i ng bot h al l ocut i ons , t hatt he C our ti s not fi xed on a pr edi s pos i t i on t o s ent ence t hes e br ot her s equal l y . ”11 Ju d g e M o o re re p lied : “N o t n e c e ss a rily . T h a t’s w h yI w a n t to h e a r b o th o f

th e m .” D evi n’ s at t or neyar gued that , pur s uantt o a pr ovi s i on of the p lea a g ree m en t, D ev in h ad sh o w n su ch ex tr ao rdin ary a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili tyth a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld departdow nw ar d fi ve poi nt s fr om t he G ui del i nes . T he a t t o r n e y a r g u e d t h a tD e v i n h a d b e e n a “ t o t a l l y i g n o r a n tb o y” a tt h e t i m e o f

t h e E m e r a l d L a d y r o b b e r y a n d “ f a s t i d i o u s l y” had tur ned hi s l i fe a r ound. G overnm entcouns el count er ed t hati tw as unl i kel yt hatD evi n had tur ned hi s l i fe a r ound, as t he pr e- s ent enci ng r epor tnot ed thatD evi n al s o w as char ged w i t h a murde rt hatoccurr ed fi ve mont hs aft ert he murde rat t he Em er al d L ady
. H e conc l uded: [T]he poi nti s , Y ourH onor , t hats om eone that ev il , to h av e c o m p let e tran sfo rm ati o n in a f o u ry earper i od, i tbegs t he ques t i on, i s i tgenui ne or i s n ’ ti t ? A n d d o e s th e c o m m u n itya t larg e h a v e to w o n d er, on ce h is sen tenc e is co m p let ed an d h e’s rel eased b ack int o the com m un i t y , w hetheri t ’s a g e n u in e c h a n g e o r n o t.

. . . W e as k t he C our tt o fas hi on a s ent ence t hati s fai r , t hati s j us t , butt hati s al s o fai rand ju st to [ th e v ictim s o f

th e sh o o tin g ] a n d th e ir fami l i es . B eca us e D evi n H odge had hi s chanc e to b e a p o s itiv e in f

lu e n c e in th e c o m m u n ity.Gw e n d o l ynR aw l i n s , a s e c uri ty gu ard

atth eE m e r a l d

L a dy, 5 w a s i n j ur e d d uri n gth er o b b e r

y. Th eDi stric t Co ur

t e xerc ise d ju

ri sdic tio n o ve r t

his c a se 6 un de r 4 8 U .S. C. § 16 12 (p ro vidingtheDi stric t Co ur t of theVi rg in I slands the jurisdiction of a District Court of the United States) and 4 V.I .C. § 32 (providingthe District Court of the Virg in I slands orig inal jurisdiction in all causes arising unde r the Constituti on, 12 L a rryD a v is [ th e o w n e r o f th e E m e ra ld L a d y ] w a s a p o sitiv e in f lu e n c e in th is c o m m u n ity. H e d o e s n ’t g e t a s e c o n d c h a n c e . H i s fami l ydoes n’ tgeta s econd c hance
. G w e n d o lyn R a w lin s’ lif e h a s b e e n c o m p lete ly t r aumat i zed. She does n’ thave a s econd c hance
.

. . . O n c e a g a in , M rs. R a w lin s h a s a sk e d to sp e a k to th e C o u rt, b u t I a sk th e C o u rt to fas hi on a s ent ence t hati s fai rand j us tt o t he vi ct i m s i n t hi s cas e. 5 A ft er heari ng a vict i m i m pact s t at em ent fr om M rs . R aw l i ns , w ho as ked thatD evi n “bea rt he ful l penal t yof the l aw , ” J udge M oor e conc l uded that , i n l i ghtof hi s know l edge of the ca s e, w hathe had he ar d att he cha nge- of- pl ea he ar i ng, and the t er m s of t he pl ea a gr eement , he had no a l t ernat i ve but t o s ent ence bot h of t he H odge br ot her s t o l i fe i n pr i s on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed i t s j udgm ent , not i ng D evi n’ s gui l t ypl ea and hi s l i fe s ent ence , on M ar ch 6, 2002. D evi n fi l ed a not i ce of appe al on M ar ch 26, 2002, ar gui ng s ol el yt hatt he D i s t r i ct C our ti gnor ed Thi r d C i r cui tl aw on “exc ept i onal pos t [- ]o f f e n s e re h a b ilita tio n .” 6tr e atie s, and laws of theUn ite d St ate s) . Wehavea pp e llate jurisdic tio n und e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 12 91 ov e r t his tim e ly a pp e a l f ro m a final order. See Hodge , 211 F.3d at 75. De vin a dd s o ther b re a c h- of

-p le a arguments on

a pp e a l, 7 including that the g overnme nt failed to advise theDistrict Court of thenatureand

e xtent of his c oo pe ratio n. We do n ot re a c h th e se arguments, as we c onclude on other grounds that the g overnme nt bre a c he d it s a gre e me nt. 13 II. A. D evi n ar gues on appea l t hatathi s s ent enci ng t he g o v e rn m e n t re n e g e d o n its p ro m ise in th e p lea a g re e m e n t to r ecomm end no s peci fi c s ent ence . H e cont ends t he g o v e rn m e n t im p licitlyre q u e ste d a life se n ten c e b yrh e to ric a lly a sk in g , “d o e s th e c o m m u n itya t larg e h a v e to w o n d e r o n c e h is s ent ence i s compl et ed and he ’ s r el eas ed bac k i nt o t he com m un i t y , w hetheri t ’s a gen uine chan ge o r not ? ” H e al so m ai nt ai ns t hatt he governm enti m pl i edl ys oughta l i fe se n ten c e b ya sk in g f

o r a se n ten c e th a t w a s “ f a ir a n d ju st” to t he vi ct i m s of hi s al l eged c r i m e, i ncl udi ng t he w i fe of t he dece as ed ow nerof t he Em er al d L ady
. E ven i f s uch br eac hes w er e i nadvert ent , D evi n cont ends , vaca turof hi s s ent ence w o u ld b e re q u ir ed b ec au se u n d er Sa ntobel l o v. N ew Y ork , 404 U
. S. 257 ( 1971) , pr os ecut or s m us tcar eful l ybe hel d t o pl ea agreem ents . 7 W hi l e D evi n does notcl ai m t o have r ai s ed hi s br eac hof- pl ea a r gum entats ent enci ng, w e maycons i dert hat arg u m en t un d er U

n itedS ta tes v . Mo sc a h la id is , 868 F. 2d 1357This doctrine frequently is trace d to Sa nto be llo , which 8 state s: This phase of theproce ss of criminal justice, a nd the adjudicative element inherent in acc eptinga plea of guilty , must be attended by safe guards to insure the def endant what is reasona

bly due in the circ umstances. Thosecirc umstances will var y , but a consta nt fac tor is that when a ple a re sts in any signific ant degreeon a promise or agree ment of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the ind uc e me nt o r c on sid e ra

tio n, su c h a

promi semus t be fulfilled.
14 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 9 ). T her e, t he governm entar gued thatt he defe ndant

- appel l antw ai ved hi s br eac h- of- pl ea a r gum entby fai l i ng pr oper l yt o obj ectathi s s ent enci ng hear i ng. 868 F. 2d a t 1 3 6 0 . “E v e n if

w e a g re e th a t ap p e llan t d id n o t p ro p e rly obj ectt o t he pl ea a gr eementvi ol at i on att he s ent enci ng hear i ng, ” w e s t at ed, “s uch fa i l ur e does notcons t i tut e a w ai ver . ” Id
. W e r ej ect ed the not i on t hatbr eac h- of- pl ea ar gum ent s s houl d be r evi ew ed forpl ai n err or , and i ns t ead h e ld th a t w e m u s t e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w . Id
. See a l so U ni t ed Stat es v. Q ueens bor ough , 2 2 7 F
. 3 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 6 (3d C ir
. 2000) ( “w hethert he governm entvi ol at ed the t er m s of a pl ea ag ree m en t i s a q u esti o n o f law su b ject t o p lena ryrev iew ”). W e have cons i der ed i n num er ous pr ece dent i al opi ni ons w h e th e r th e g o v e rn m e n t b re a c h e d a p lea a g re e m e n t b yw h a t it sa id a t se n ten c in g . W h ile o u r in q u iryin su c h c a se s te n d s to be fa ct - s peci fi c, t he bas i c rul es ar e cl ear . T he governm ent m us t“adhe r e s t r i ct l yt o t he t er m s of the bar gai ns i ts t r i kes w i t h defe ndant s . ” Q ueens bor ough , 227 F. 3d at156. 8404 U.S. at 262-63. 15 B eca us e def

endant s ent er i ng pl eas for fei ta number of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , “court s ar e compel l ed t o s crut i ni ze c lo se lyth e p ro m ise m a d e b yth e g o v e rn m e n t in o rd e r to det er m i ne w hetheri thas been pe r for m ed. ” Id
. T he ques t i on f o r a re v iew in g c o u rt is “ w h e th e r th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c o n d u c t is cons i s t entw i t h t he part i es ’ r eas onabl e under s t andi ng of the agr eement . ” Id
. I n ot herw or ds , w e appl ycontr actl aw s t andar ds t o pl ea a gr eement s ; a “r i gi dl yl i t er al ” i nt erpr et i ve a p p ro a c h is n o t a llo w e d
. U ni t ed Stat es v. N

ol an- C ooper , 155 F. 3d 221, 236 ( 3d C i r . 1998)

. T he l ogi cal t hr ead runni ng t hr ough ourr el evantcas es i s m os teas i l yt r ace d chr onol ogi cal l y . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. C r us co , 536 F. 2d 21 ( 3d C i r . 1976) , t he governm entpr om i s ed to ta k e n o p o s itio n o n s e n te n c in g . Id
. at23. Y et , att he se n ten c in g h e a rin g , the p ro se c u to r sta ted th a t, “[ a ]s to d e f e n d a n t’ s s ta tu s , e le v a tio n in o rg a n iz e d c ri m e h ie ra rc h y . . . . I t h i n k t h i s s h o ws t h e t yp e o f i n d i v i d u a l h e i s . I t h i n k i ts h o ws t h e i mp o r t a n c e i n o r g a n i z e d c r i me t h a th e h a s a n d a l s o s h o ws t he dange rt o t he comm uni t yt hatt hi s m an has bybei ng outon t he s t r eet . ” Id
. at 25
. W e h eld th at t h e g o v ern m en t’ s char act er i zat i on w as “a tr ans par enteff or tt o i nfl uence t he s ever i t yof [a ppel l ant ’ s ] s ent ence . ” Id
. at26. W e r eas oned that “[ o ]nlya stu b b o rnlyli teral m ind w o u ld ref u se to reg ard t he G overnm ent ’ s comm ent aryas comm uni cat i ng a pos i t i on o n sen tenc ing [,]” an d co n clud ed that “[ t] h e g o v ern m en t’ s f in a l ar g u m e n t th a t itw o u ld h a v e b re a c h e d th e p lea b a rg a in o n lyif it h a d a c tu a llyre c o m m e n d e d th e ter m s o f a se n ten c e is t hus ans w er ed. W e bel i eve thats uch a s t r i ctand narr ow i nterpret at i on of it s com m i t m ent i s untenable and w e m ust16 r ej ecti t . ” Id . at 2 6 . O n re m a n d , the a p p e llan t w a s a llo w e d to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p le a . Id
. at27. I n contr as t , t he pr os ecut ori n U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 565 F. 2d 1273 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ( percur i am), pl edged t o m ake n o re c o m m e n d a tio n re g a rd in g th e s e n te n c e to b e im p o s e d
. I d. at1274. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he governm entar gued t hatt he appe l l ant ’ s cr i m e coul d notbe exc us ed byi nducement b e c a u se th e a lleg e d in d u c e m e n t o c c u rre d a y e a r-a n d -a -h a lf b e f o re th e c ri m e . Id
. at1274. T he appe l l antm ai nt ai ned that th is s ta te m e n t a m o u n te d to a s e n te n c in g re c o m m e n d a tio n . W e e x p lai n ed that, u n d er C r us co , t he pr om i s e t o t ake no pos i t i on as t o s ent enci ng w a s d if f e re n t th a n th e p ro m ise to m ake n o recom m end ati on as t o the t erm s o f th e s e n te n c e . Id
. a t 1 2 7 5 . W e c o n c lu d e d th a t Mi l l erpr es ent ed the l at t er situ a tio n : H er e, t he G overnm enthas s peci fi cal l ypr om i s ed onl ynott o m ake r ecomm endat i on as t o t he se n ten c e . T h e d if

f e re n c e b e tw e e n th e ter m s is e lem e n tar y , fo r th e p ro m ise n o t to re c o m m e n d is narr ow , s peaki ng onl yt o t he s ent ence t o be i m pos ed, w her eas a pr om i s e t o t ake no pos i t i on s peaks t o no at t empt atal l t o i nfl uence t he d e f e n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e . Id
. A ccor di ngl y , w e hel d t hatt he governm entdi d notbr eac h i t s agr eementnott o r ecomm end a s ent ence byar gui ng t hatt he appel l ant ’ s excus e forhi s cr i m i nal act i vi t yw as i nval i d, and w e a f f ir m e d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. Id
. W e fur t herel abor at ed on the di s t i nct i on betw een17 t aki ng no pos i t i on as t o a s ent ence and notr ecomm endi ng a s ent ence i n Mo sc a h la id is
. I n t hatcas e, t he governm ent vow ed thati tw oul d “nott ake a pos i t i on r el at i ve t o w hetheror n o t a c u s to d ia l s e n te n c e s h a ll b e im p o s e d o n [ a p p e lla n t] b u t . .

. w i l l r ecomm end t o t he s ent enci ng J udge thati f a c us t odi al s ent ence i s i m pos ed on [a ppel l ant ] , i tw i l l notexce ed one y ear . ” Id
. at1358. I n i t s s ent enci ng m emora ndum , t he g o v e rn m e n t r e f

e rr e d to th e a p p e lla n t’ s “ m o ra l b a n k ru p tc y ,” d e n o u n c e d h is “ d e m o n ic” e f f o rts to p re se rv e h is “ f

e tid empi r e, ” and s t at ed thathe w as “notj us ta w hi t e- col l ar cr i m i nal
. ” Id
. at1359. T he mem or andum concl uded that , per i t s pl ea a gr eement , t he U ni t ed St at es w oul d notr ecomm end a s ent ence ; “how ever , s houl d t he courtel ectt o i m pos e a cus t odi al s ent ence on [appe l l ant ] , t he U ni t ed St at es i s bound t o r ecomm end thatt he cus t odi al t er m notexce ed one y ear i m pr i s onm ent . ” Id . T h e m e m o ra n d u m a d d e d th a t “[ t]h is r ecomm endat i on i s par tof the pl ea a gr eementbetw een the defe ndantand the U ni t ed St at es . I ti s notbi ndi ng upon t he cour t . ” Id
. W e re jec ted th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t itk e p t it s a g re e m e n t. “If

th e g o v e rn m e n t w a n ted to b e lim ited o n lyto notr ecomm endi ng a s ent ence , ” w e dec l ar ed, “i ts houl d have pr om i s ed nott o r ecomm end a s ent ence . I ns t ead, t he p rose cu tor p rom ised to tak e n o p o sit ion as to w h ethe r a cust od i al sent ence sh ou l d b e i m po sed. T he g ov ernm ent m ust stric tlyc o m p lyw ith th e ter m s o f th e a g re e m e n t itm a d e w ith appel l ant . ” Id . at 1 3 6 2 -6 3 . W e h e ld “ th a t th e sta tem e n ts m ade byt he pr os ecut orw hi ch off er ed opi ni ons and dr ew concl us i ons aboutappel l ant ’ s char act ervi ol at ed the t er m s of t he pl ea a gr eement . ” Id
. Fur t her , w e hel d t hatt he g o v e rn m e n t’s “ c o m m e n t ab o u t [ a p p e llan t] n o t b e in g ‘ju st a18 w h ite c o llar c rim in a l’ w a s ta k in g [ a ] p o sitio n re lativ e to w hethera cus t odi al s ent ence be i m pos ed and thus vi ol at ed the pl ea a gr eement . ” Id
. W e expl ai ned thati n t hi s C i r cui t“the ru le is to re m a n d th e c a se to th e d istric t co u rt f o r it to det er m i ne w hethert o gr ants peci fi c per for m ance oral l ow w i t hdr aw al of t he pl ea. ” Id
. I n t he pr es entcas e, t he governm entpr om i s ed t o “make no speci fi c sent encing recom m end at i on othert han t o reque st t hat the sentence be w i t hin the g uidel i ne rang e. ” W e fi rs t m us tdet er m i ne w hatD evi n “r eas onabl yunder s t ood [he] w ou l d b e recei ving from t he g ov ernm ent i n return fo r [hi s] pl ea of gui l t y . ” N

ol an- C ooper , 155 F. 3d at239. T hough “r eas onabl yunder s t ood” s ugges t s a part i al l ys ubj ect i ve in q u ir y , in p ra c tic e th e in q u ir yis p u re ly o b je c tiv e . See i d. ( s t r es s i ng t he pl ai n l anguage of the agr eementand es chew i ng a “ rig id lylit e ra l” in ter p re tiv e a p p ro a c h ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have unde r s t ood t he pl ai n l anguage of D evi n’ s pl ea a gr eementt o m ean thatt he governm ent w o u ld n o t m a k e a n ys p e c if ic s e n te n c in g re c o m m e n d a tio n . T h e g o v e rn m e n t ap p a re n tlya g re e s, a s it a rg u e s th a t n o th in g it sa id a t se n ten c in g “ e x p licitly , ind ire c tly , o r ta c itl y r ecomm ended a l i fe s ent ence . ” T he governm entbr oke i t s pr om i s e. T he pr os ecut or as ked “w hethert he comm uni t yatl ar ge [ha d] t o w onder , once [ D e v in ’s] se n ten c e is c o m p lete d a n d h e ’s r e lea se d b a c k in to t he comm uni ty , w hether[he made] a genui ne cha nge ornot . ” T h e p lain im p lica tio n o f th a t sta tem e n t w a s th a t D e v in sh o u ld notbe r el eas ed bac k i nt o t he comm uni t y . T he pr os ecut or a d d e d th a t D e v in “ h a d h is c h a n c e to b e a p o sitiv e in f lu e n c e in t he comm uni ty . ” The pl ai n i m pl i cat i on of thats t at ement w asW eth i nk th i s i s e s p e c i a l l y tr

u eg i v e nth atM r s . Gw e n d o l yn 9 Rawlins, one of De vin’s alleg ed victims, asked at sentencingthat Devin “be ar thefull penalty of the law .” 19 t hatD evi n s houl d notbe gi ven anotherchanc e t o be a pos i t i ve i nfl uence i n t he comm uni t y . T he pr os ecut ors t at ed thatt he m ur dervi ct i m di d notgeta s econd c hance t o be a pos i t i ve i nfl uence i n t he comm uni t yand ur ged the C our tt o “fa s hi on a s ent ence t hati s fai rand j us tt o t he vi ct i m s i n t hi s cas e. ” The plai n im pli cat i on of thatst at em ent w as that a fai r and j ust sen tenc e f

o r D ev in w o u ld d en yh im a se co n d ch an ce . In 9 sh o rt , “[ o ]nlya stu b b o rnlyli teral m ind w o u ld ref u se to reg ard th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c o m m e n tar ya s c o m m u n ica tin g a [ sp e c if ic r ecomm endat i on] on s ent enci ng. ” C r us co , 5 3 6 F .2 d a t 2 6
. B yr ecomm endi ng a “l i fe s ent ence i n al l butname, ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P ollard , 959 F. 2d 1011, 1024 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1992) , t he governm entbr eac hed i t s agr eementw i t h D evi n. T hi s hol di ng acc or ds w i t h Mo sc a h la id is , Mi l l er , and C r us co. I n Mo sc a h la id is , w e w arned that“[i ] f the governm entw ant ed t o be l i m i t ed onl yt o notr ecomm endi ng a s ent ence , i ts houl d have pr om i s ed nott o r ecomm end a s ent ence . I ns t ead, t he pr os ecut orpr om i s ed t o t ake no pos i t i on

. . . . T he governm entm us ts t r i ct l ycompl yw i t h t he t er m s of th e a g re e m e n t it m a d e w ith a p p e lla n t.” 8 6 8 F .2 d a t 1 3 5 8
. H er e, evi dent l ys eeki ng t o l eave i t s al l ocut i on opt i ons open, t he governm entnotonl ypr om i s ed nott o r ecomm end a s e n te n c e , it p ro m is e d n o t to re c o m m e n d a “ s p e c if ic ” s e n te n c e . Fai r l ycons t rui ng i t s al l ocut i on, how ever , t he governm ent br eac hed eve n t hatnarr ow pr om i s e. W hi l e Mo sc a h la id is and Mi l l erencour age the governm entt o us e “no r ecomm endat i on” l anguage t o pr es er ve l i ngui s t i c l eew ayatWe believe our decision today

also ac cords with the 10 holding in Po lla rd, wh i c hs o m e wh atr e s e mb l e s th i s c a s e . In Po lla rd, the g overnme nt “stated it would seek a ‘substantial period of inca rceration,’ but agree d not to ask for a life sentenc e.” 959 F.2d at 1022. Poll ard maintained that the g overnme nt’s forc eful allocution implied to the district judg e that a lifesentenc e wa s appropriate. Id . at 10 24 ; see also id. at 1035 (“ the repeate d use of superlatives implied an a

ppeal f or the maximum .”) ( Wil liams, J ., dissenting) . The majority held that the district cour t avoided cle ar error in conc luding other

wise, explaining that “ [t ]he government did not ask for a

‘life se ntencein all but name,’ be causeit never introduced e xplicitly

or implicitly

the notion or conc ept of a maxi mum sentence ; nor did it ever usewords that could bethought sy nony mous with a life term.” Id . at 1024 (Silberman, J., joi ned by Ginsburg , R. B., J.). In contra st to Po lla rd, herethe g overnme nt introduced, implicitly , the notion of a maximumsentenc e; indeed, it did s o c le arly

and repe ate dly . Co ns e qu e ntly , e ve n if wewereto a p p l y Po lla rd ’s def

erential standard of

revie w, we ha

ve no doubt that th eg ov e rnme nt v iol ate d it s p le a a gre e me nt. 20 s ent enci ng, t hatl eew ayi s noti nfi ni t el yel as t i c. I ndeed, Mo sc a h la id is decl ar es t hatt he governm entw i l l be “l i m i t ed” to its p ro m is e n o t to re c o m m e n d a s e n te n c e . Id
. A s t he governm enther e exc eede d t hos e br oad l i m i t s , t hi s cas e al i gns w i t h Mo sc a h la id is o r Mi l l er , a n d f u n d a m e n tallyf

its w ith C r us co . A s i n C r us co , w e w il l r em an d fo r th e D istri ct C o u rt t o det er m i ne w hethert o gr ants peci fi c per for m ance oral l ow w ith d ra w a l o f

th e g u ilty p le a . S e e Mo sc a h la id is , 868 F. 2d at 1358. 10 B. D ev in f u rt h er a rgu es o n ap p ea l th at t h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s pl ea c ol l oquyw as defi ci entbeca us e the D i s t r i ctJ udge di d not know D evi n’ s pl ea w as cont i ngenton I r vi ne’ s i dent i cal pl ea,21 a n d v ice v e rsa . H a d th e D istric t C o u rt b e e n p ro p e rly in f o rm e d a b o u t th e p a c k a g e d e a l an d h a d D e v in b e e n p ro p e rly ques t i oned, he cont ends t hathe w oul d have be en di s s uaded from pleadi ng gu i l t y . H e add s that the D i stri ctC ou rtal so e rre d b yf

a ili n g to a sk w h e th e r h is w ill in g n e ss to p lea d g u ilty “r es ul t [ed] fr om pr i ordi s cus s i ons betw een the att or neyfort he governm entand the def endantort he def

endant ’ s at t or ney . ” F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 1 (d ) (re p e a led in re lev a n t p a rt); U ni t ed S ta tes v . Mu sta

fa , 2 3 8 F .3 d 4 8 5 , 4 9 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). U ni t ed Stat es v. V

onn , 5 3 5 U .S . 5 5 (2 0 0 2 ), h e ld th a t a defe ndantw ho fai l s t o obj ectt o R ul e 11 err orm us tcarr yt he bur den of s how i ng on appea l t hatt he err orw as “pl ai n, pr ej udi ci al , and di s r eput abl e t o t he j udi ci al s y s t em. ” Id . a t 6 5
. I n ot herw or ds , a def

endantm us ts how t hat : “( 1) an err orw as com m i t t ed; ( 2) t he err or w as pl ai n, t hat i s, cl ear and o bv i ou s; and ( 3) t he err oraff

ect ed the def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D i

xon , 308 F. 3d 229, 234 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Un i t e d

S t a t e s v . S

y me , 2 7 6 F
. 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 4 3 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 )). W h en tho se e lem en ts are sa ti sfied , an ap p ell ate c o u rt in its d isc re tio n m a yo rd e r a c o rre c tio n if th e e rro r “ se rio u sly aff ect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id
. ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. St eve ns , 223 F. 3d 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 )). W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t co m m it pl ai n err ordur i ng t he R ul e 11 col l oquy . T hough t he t er m s of t he pac kagi ng agr eementhave notbeen di s cl os ed t o us , t he governm entdoes notdi s put e thatD evi n’ s and I r vi ne’ s pl eas w e re lo c k e d . A n d , ind e e d , the g o v e rn m e n t’s c o v e r le tter to the f inal d raf t plea a g ree m en t st ates tha t th e p leas w ere
“ lo c k [ e d ].” A s w e e x p lain b e lo w , o th e r C o u rts o f A p p e a lsAbsent cle ar error , we ne ed not consider whether the 11 District Court’s Rule 11 colloquy aff ecte d Devin’s substantial rights or jeopardized the fairne ss, integrity , or public reputation of judicial proce eding s. See D ixon , 308 F.3d at 233-34. 22 re q u ire d isc lo su re o f

su c h a rra n g e m e n ts to th e d istric t co u rt, w h ich m u st e x e rc ise sp e c ial c a re a t th e R u le 1 1 c o llo q u yto e n s u r e t h a te a c h p a r t i c i p a n tp l e a d s v o l u n t a r i l y. U n t i l t o d a y, h o we v e r , t h a twa s n o tt h e l a w i n t h i s Ci r c u i t . He r e t o f o r e , we have di s cus s ed pac kage de al pl ea ba r gai ns onl yi n di ct a, and th e re sta ted sim p lyth a t su c h b a rg a in s a re “ p e rm iss ib le p ro v id e d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t’s d e c isio n to f

o re g o trial is ot herw i s e vol unt ary . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Sel igs ohn , 981 F. 2d 1418, 1426 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( not i ng t hatvol unt ar i nes s of a p p e lla n t’ s p le a w a s “ n o t p ro p e rl yb e f o re ” th e C o u rt ). C ons equent l y , even i f the D i s t r i ctC our thad bee n i nfor m ed th a t D e v in ’s p lea w a s p a c k a g e d , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t f a ilu re to conductD evi n’ s col l oquyw i t h s peci al car e w oul d have be en
“ c le a r a n d o b v io u s ” e rr o r. D i xon , 3 0 8 F .3 d a t 2 3 3 -3 4
. C f. U n itedS ta tes v . A b b o tt , 241 F. 3d 29, 34 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( “[T] he di s cl os ur e of the exi s t ence of a pa ckage deal i s cruci al att he R ul e 11 hea r i ng so th a t t he di s t r i ctcour tm aypr obe as d e e p lya s n e e d e d in to th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t o n e d e f e n d a n t is p lead ing g u il tyag ains t his w il l .
. . . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). It foll ow s a fo rtio ri t hatfai l ur e t o pr ovi de s peci al car e w as not cl earand obvi ous err orw her e, as her e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as n o t in f o rm e d o f th e p a c k a g e d e a l. 11 N o r c a n w e sa yth a t th e D istric t C o u rt p lain lye rre d in fai l i ng t o as k D evi n aboutpr i ordi s cus s i ons w i t h t he g o v e rn m e n t u n d e r R u le 1 1 (d ). S in c e D e v in ’s c o llo q u yin 2 0 0 0 , R u le 1 1 (d ) h a s b e e n m o v e d a n d c h a n g e d . N o w , R u le23 11( b) ( 2) , r athert han R ul e 11( d) , addr es s es vol unt ar i nes s , and t he r efe r ence t o pr i ordi s cus s i ons has been de l et ed. T he Supr eme C our thas i ns t ruct ed that , “i n t he abs ence of a c l ear l egi s l at i ve mandat e, t he A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee N ot es pr ovi de i ns i ghti nt o t he meani ng of a rul e, es peci al l yw hen, as her e, t he rul e w as enac t ed pr eci s el yas t he A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee pr opos ed. ” V

onn , 535 U
. S. at63 n. 6. W e thi nk t he omi s s i on of r efe r ence s i n t he new R ul e 11 t o pr i ordi s cus s i ons es t abl i s hes a “c l earl egi s l at i ve mandat e” thats uch r efe r ence s are u n n ec essa ryto co n d u ct an ad eq u ate R u le 11 co ll o q u y . If t her e w er e anydoubton t hati s s ue, t he A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee expl ai ns t hatt he ol d r equi r ement , “oft en a s our ce of confus i on t o defe ndant s w ho w er e cl ear l ypl eadi ng gui l t yas par tof a pl ea a gr eementw i t h t he governm ent , w as cons i der ed unnece s s ary . ” A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee’ s N ot es on 2002 A m endment s t o Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 11. W hetherornott he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed a “ cl earand obvi ous ” err ort hat aff ect ed D evi n’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , i ti s t hus cl eart hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s om i s s i on di d not“s er i ous l yaff ectt he fa irn ess, i n tegrit y , o r pu b li c re p u tat ion ” o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s p ro c e e d in g s . See D i

xon , 3 0 8 F .3 d a t 2 3 3 -3 4
. W hi l e w e hol d t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed no p lain e rro r, w e b e liev e th a t d e ter m in in g v o lu n tar in e ss in p a c k a g e d e a l s i tu a t i o n s i s a n e s p e c i a l l yd e l i c a t e m a t t e r . We there fo re w ri te t o p rov ide g u idan ce to the D istri ct C o u rt sh o u ld a n e w p lea c o llo q u yb e n e c e ss a ryo n re m a n d , an d to assi stfutur e dis t ri ctcou rt s consi deri ng such p l eas. A s t hei rname sugge s t s , packa ge dea l pl ea ba r gai ns exi s tw her e the governm entacc ept s a def endant ’ s gui l t ypl ea o n th e c o n d itio n th a t h is c o -d e f e n d a n t( s ) a ls o p le a d g u ilty.Un ited S tates v . D an ie ls , 821 F.2d 76, 78- 79 (1st Cir. 12 1987) (B reyer, J.) (holding that government failure to tell court at Rule 11 hearing that plea wa s packag ed violated Rule 11); United Sta te s v . Cle ments , 9 92 F .2 d 4 17 , 4 19 (2 d Ci r. 19 93 ) (pe r curiam) (statingthat disclosure of ple a pac kag ing is the “pref erred pra ctice” and the “ more prudent course,”and that pac kag ing “ should be state d to thec ourt .” ); Un ited S tates v . B e nn e tt , 332 F.3d 1094, 11 01 (7 th C ir . 2 00 3) ; Un ited S tates v . Ca ro , 997 F.2d 657, 659- 60 (9 th C ir . 1 99 3) ; United States v. Holland, 1 17 F .3 d 5 89 , 5 94 (D .C. Cir. 1997) (district cour

t “should be informe d” about plea packag ing)
. See U

nited States v. Morrow , 9 14 F .2 d 6 08 , 6 13 (4 th Cir. 1990) (statingthat failureto inform court of packag ed plea s “raise[d] eyebrow s” of Court of Appeals). Cf. United States v. Usher , 703 F.2d 956, 958- 59 (6th Cir. 1983) (holdingthat District 24 T h e in c e n tiv e to jo in su c h a rra n g e m e n ts is s tra ig h tf o rw a rd : the g o v ern m en t of

fe rs de fe n d an ts a “v o lum e d isco u n t - a bet t erdeal t han ea ch coul d have gott en s epar at el y . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C aro , 997 F. 2d 657, 658 ( 9t h C i r . 1993)
. O f cour s e, t he bene fi t s of s uch dea l s ar e s el dom di s t r i but ed eve nl y , and e v e ryd e f

e n d a n t m a yn o t b e e q u a llyin ter e ste d in b a rg a in s hoppi ng. Fam i l i al orfr at ernal coer ci on of put at i ve confe der at es i n packa ge pl ea de al s i s a s er i ous conce r n, s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Mes cual

- C r uz , 3 8 7 F
. 3 d 1 , 7 (1st C ir2 0 0 4 ), a s to s o m e e x te n t is s e lf -i m p o s e d p re s s u re . See i d. ; U ni t ed St at es v. M

ar quez , 909 F. 2d 738, 742 ( 2d C i r . 1990)
. T hough r es er vi ng j udgm enton t he ques t i on, t he Supr eme C our thas wa r n e d t h a t“ o f

f e r s o f l e n i e n c yo ra d v e r s e t r e a t me n tf o rs o me per s on ot hert han the ac cus ed .
. . m i ghtpos e a gr eat erdanger of i nduci ng a fa l s e gui l t ypl ea bys kew i ng t he as s es s m entof t he r i s ks a def

endantm us tcons i der
. ” B or denki r cherv. H ayes , 43 4 U
. S
. 35 7, 36 5 n
. 8 (197 7). M i nd ful of t hese cons i der at i ons , ot herC our t s of A ppeal s w i del yr equi r e that ( 1) packa ge pl ea de al s be di s cl os ed t o t he court and ( 2) 12C o urtd i d n o terr i nn o t“r ai s i n g sua sponte the possibility of conditions [ on defendant’s plea ] even though appellant and his codefendant were husband a nd wife a nd even though both pleaded guilty at the sametime”). Un ited S tates v . Tu rsi , 576 F.2d 396, 398 ( 1st Cir. 1978) 13 (holdingthat “spec ial care must be take n to asce rtain the voluntariness of the [pac kag ed] guilty plea” ); Harman v. M

ohn , 68 3 F .2 d 8 34 , 8 37 -3 8 ( 4th Cir . 1 98 2) ; Usher , 703 F.2d at 958; Politte v. United States , 852 F.2d 924 ( 7th Cir. 1988); United Sta te s v . Caste llo , 724 F.2d 813, 815 ( 9th Cir. 1984). See U nited Sta te s v . Nu ck ols , 606 F.2d 566, 570 ( 5th Cir. 1979) (holding that special care must be take n to determine voluntariness where plea a gre e me nt i s “ ma dein c on sid e ra tio n o f l e nient t

re atment a s ag a ins t thi rd pe rs on s” ); United States v. W right , 43 F.3d 491 ( 10th Cir. 1994) (same). See also Martin v. Kem p , 760 F.2d 1244, 1247 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 5) (h oldingthat e vid e nc ea s to vo luntarine ss o f guil ty plea, alleg edly

entered in exchang e for

leniency toward de fenda

nt’s pregnant wife , was not suffic iently develope d on collateral re view) (c i t i n g Nuck

ols , 606 F.2d at 569). But see United States v

. Ga mb le , 327 F.3d 662 ( 8th Cir. 2003) (re quiring , implicitl y , no sp e c ia l c arewh e reple a s a repa c kag e d) ; LoConte v. D ugger , 847 F.2d 745, 753 ( 11th Cir. 1988) (same; c ollateral review); United States v. Farley , 72 F.3d 158, 164 ( D.C. Cir. 1995) (re quiring “moresearchinginquiry” at Rule 11 c olloquy only if defendant expresses re luctancewhen a sked about thre ats or coercion). 25 c o llo q u ies w ith p a c k a g e p lea p a rticip a n ts b e c o n d u c ted w ith s peci al car e. W e agr ee, and adoptt hes e r equi r ement s for

13 dis t ri ctcou rt s i n thi s C i rcui tcon si deri ng pack aged pleas
. T her e i s no ques t i on t hatpacka ge dea l pl ea ba r gai ns a re c o n s titu tio n a l. See P ollard , 959 F. 2d at1021- 22 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T hatconcl us i on i s near l yaxi om at i c gi ven the natur e of ourcr i m i nal j us t i ce s y s t em, of w hi ch pl ea ba r gai ns ar e an “ es s ent i al par t . ” Sa n to b e llo , 404 U
. S. at261; see al so26 B l ackl edge v

. A l l is on , 4 3 1 U .S . 6 3 , 7 1 (1 9 7 7 ). “W h ile co n fro n ti n g a d ef

en d an t w ith the risk o f m o re se v ere puni s hm entcl ear l ym ayhave a di s cour agi ng eff ecton t he d ef en d an t’ s ass erti o n o f h is tri al ri g h ts, ” the S u p rem e C o u rt has exp l ai ned , “t he im po si t i on of these di ffi cultcho i ces [i s] a n in e v itab le – a n d p e rm iss ib le – a ttribu te o f a n yleg iti m a te s y s t em w hi ch t ol er at es and enc our ages t he negot i at i on of p le a s .” B or denki r cher , 434 U
. S. at364. I n tur n, t he Second C i r cui thas not ed that , “[s ] i nce a defe ndant ’ s pl ea i s not re n d e re d in v o lu n tar yb e c a u se h e e n ter s it to sa v e h im se lf m a n yy e a rs in p riso n , itis d if f icu lt t o se e w h yth e law sh o u ld no tperm i ta def

end ant t o n ego t i at e a plea that confers a s i m i l arbenef

i ton ot her s . ” M

ar quez , 9 0 9 F
. 2 d a t7 4 2
. We ag ree an d h o ld tha t pac k ag e d ea l plea b arg ains are c o n s titu tio n a lly p e rm is s ib le
. See Se l igs ohn , 981 F. 2d at1426. T ho ug h all ow ed, pack age d eal pleas po se speci al ri sks, part i cular l yw hen a t ri al cou rti s unaw are that defend ants ’ pl eas ar e t i ed t ogether
. T he Fi r s tC i r cui t , w hi ch has an ext ens i ve j ur i s prudence i n t hi s ar ea, m os toft en has r ever s ed packa ge dea l pl eas w hen the di s t r i ctcour tw as noti nfor m ed o f th e p a c k a g in g . Mes cual

- C r uz , 3 8 7 F .3 d a t 8 . A c c o rd in g to t he Fi r s tC i r cui t ’ s s ound r eas oni ng, w hen a de fenda nt ’ s pl ea r es t s on a pr om i s e byt he governm entt hatanotherdefe ndant w ill b e n e f

it, th a t p ro m is e is a m a te ri a l te rm o f th e a g re e m e n t. A b b o tt , 2 4 1 F .3 d a t 3 3
. See al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Her nandez , 7 9 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 4 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). A n d , o f c o u rse , “[ f

]u ll di s cl os ur e t o t he di s t r i ctcour tof the mat er i al t er m s of pl ea a g re e m e n ts is n e c e ss a ryto in su re th a t th e R u le 1 1 c o llo q u yis th o ro u g h a n d se a rc h in g a s to d e f e n d a n t’s k n o w in g , inte lli g e n t, an d v o lun taryw aive r of the righ t, am o n g o thers, t o a jury t r i al
. ” A b b o tt , 241 F. 3d at33. W e ther efor e hol d t hatt heTw o Co ur ts o f A pp e a ls h avesu g g e ste d th at th eduty to 14 disclose plea pa ckag ing “ falls with particula r we ight on pros e c uto rs [,] wh o h avea re sp on sib ili ty

no t mere ly

to w in, but to win fairly .” Caro , 9 97 F .2 d at 65 9 n .2 ; Clements , 992 F.2d at 419 (re commendingprosecutorial disclosure a s the “pre fer red prac tice”) . Other Courts of Appeals e xpressly requireprosecutorial dis c los ureye t aresil e nt re g ardingde fens ec ouns e l’ s c omm e ns urate duty , if any
. Mesc ual-Cruz , 387 F.3d at 9 (requiring prosecutorial dis c los ure ); Benn e tt , 3 32 F .3 d at 11 01 (s ame ). We o f c ours e rec ognize that defenda

nts, not prosecutors, face thedang er of skewe d assessment of risks when pac kag e deal plea barg ains areat stake. See B ordenkircher , 4 3 4 U
. S
. at3 6 5 n . 8
. D e s c rip t i v e l y, p ro s ec ut o rs thu s m ay

b e m o re l i k el y

ac tu al l y t o d i s cl o s e p ac k age deal plea s than their counterpar ts. But that does not absolve defense counse l from their e xpress duty under Rule 11 to notify

the c o urto f th em at e ri a lt e r

m s o f th ep l e a agr e e m e nt . P r e s c rip t i v e l y, a s o ff ic e rsof thec ourt , d e fens ec ouns e l ha veno le ss o f a

duty to follow the rules of

disclosure than prosecutors. That duty includes disclosing that a

plea ba rg ain is a pac kag e deal. 27 part i es m ust n o tifyth e d istric t co u rt th a t a p a c k a g e d e a l ex ists and s t at e t o t he courton t he r ecor d t he s peci fi c t er m s of that d e a l. See F ed. R
. C ri m . P
. 11 (c) (2) (“Th e part i es m ust d iscl o se th e p lea a g ree m en t i n o p en co u rt. . . . ”); Her nandez , 79 F. 3d at1194 ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . R o b e rts , 570 F. 2d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 7 n . 2 5 (D
. C
. C ir
. 1 9 7 7 )). 14 O nce a cour thas been t ol d of a pa ckage deal , s peci al c a re sh o u ld b e e x e rc ise d d u rin g th e R u le 1 1 p lea c o llo q u yto ens ur e thatt he def

endanti s pl eadi ng vol unt ar i l y . O t her C our t s of A ppeal s have s tudi ous l ydecl i ned t o di ct at e det ai l ed
“ s p e c ia l c a re ” m a rc h in g o rd e rs . See , e .g ., Mes cual

- C r uz , 387 F. 3d at8 ( “W e have not. . . m andat ed thatextr a pr ocedur es be fol l ow ed .
. . . ”)
. W e s har e thei rcaut i on. M or e than thr ee d ec ad es a g o , the S u p rem e C o u rtw arn ed that the “ [t]he n ature28 of the i nqui r yr equi r ed byR ul e 11 mustnece s s ar i l yvaryfr om cas e t o cas e, ” McC ar thy v. U ni t ed Stat es , 394 U
. S. 459, 467 n. 20 ( 1969) , and i tr ece nt l yr ei t er at ed that“R ul e 11 s houl d not be gi ven s uch a c r abbed i nt erpr et at i on t hatcer emonyw as exal t ed overs ubs t ance . ” V onn , 535 U
. S. at70. W i t h R ul e 11, C o n g re ss d e c id e d to “ strip d istric t ju d g e s o f f re e d o m to deci de w hatth e ym u st e x p lain to a d e f e n d a n t w h o w ish e s to p l e a d g u i l t y, b u tn o tt o t e l l t h e m p r e c i s e l y how to p e rf o rm th is i mp o r t a n tt a s k i n t h e g r e a tv a r i e t yo f c a s e s t h a two u l d c o me befor e them. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . Sa

ft , 558 F. 2d 1073, 1079 ( 2d C i r . 1977) ( Fr i endl y , J
. ) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. A s R ul e 11 does nots ugges tt hati t s r equi r ement s can be m ets ol el yby re a d in g its e le m e n ts v e rb a tim , id
. , w e thi nk i tw oul d be p resu m p tuo u s fo r us to ad d to the R u le ou r ow n m iniature l i t a n y. W hatt hen i n gener al t er m s i s “s peci al car e”? A tt he t hr es hol d, a di s t r i ctcour tnot i fi ed of a packa ge dea l pl ea bar gai n s houl d ques t i on couns el cl os el yt o ens ur e thatt he p re c is e te rm s o f

th e p a c k a g e p le a d e a l a re o n th e re c o rd
. See F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 1 (b )(2 ), 1 1 (c )(2 ). O n c e it i s c lea r e x a c tly how a def

endant ’ s pl ea be nefi t s hi s confe der at e( s ) , i tm aybe h e lp f u l to a s k w h o f

ir s t p ro p o s e d th e p a c k a g e d e a l, s ee U ni t ed S ta tes v . P o lit te , 852 F. 2d 924, 930- 31 ( 7t h C i r . 1988) , how ext ens i vel ydefe ns e couns el w as i nvol ved i n devel opi ng t he d e a l, s ee U

ni t ed Stat es v. U

s her , 7 0 3 F
. 2 d 9 5 6 , 9 5 8 (6th C ir
. 1 9 8 3 ), an d w h a t b e n e f

it t he def endantexpec t s t o gai n fr om th e d e a l. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B uckl ey , 84 7 F
. 2d 99 1, 99 5 (1st C i r . 1988)
. W hen as ki ng w hethera pl ea i s a pr oductof for ce, th re a ts, o r in d u c e m e n ts a n d th e lik e , a d istric t co u rt sh o u ld t ake c ar e nott o as k onl yw hethert he pr os ecutorfor ced, th re a ten e d , o r c o e rc e d th e d e f e n d a n t, bu t w h e th e r a n y o n e d id s o . U ni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez - Mol i na , 64 F
. 3d 71 9, 73 4 (1st C i r . 1995)
. H avi ng s o i nqui r ed, t he courts houl d be par t i cul ar l yat tuned t o even mi l d expr es s i ons of r el uct ance by a d e f e n d a n t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Far l ey , 72 F. 3d 158, 16429 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); U

n itedS ta tes v . D a n iels , 821 F. 2d 76, 79 (1st C ir
. 1 9 8 7 ). S u ch ex p ression s alw ay s sh o u ld tr igg er a m o re s e a rc h in g in q u ir y . See Farl ey , 72 F. 3d at164. O n t he o th e r h a n d , as n o n e o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts m a yb e p a rticu lar ly eage rt o pl ead gui l t y , one def endant ’ s expr es s i ons of re lu c tan c e sh o u ld b e c o m p a re d to th o se o f o th e r d e f

e n d a n ts in v o lv e d in th e p a c k a g e d e a l. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor r ow , 914 F. 2d 608, 613 ( 4t h C i r . 1990) ( r efus i ng t o gr antw r i tof habea s corpus w her e s on cl ai m ed t o have pl eade d i nvol unt ar i l y , butt es t i m onyi ndi cat ed thatfathercl ai m ed at c h a n g e -o f

-p lea h e a rin g th a t he w a s p le a d in g to h e lp s o n ). T he for egoi ng i s nota che ckl i s tt hat , i f fol l ow ed, aut om at i cal l yw i l l pr eventa R ul e 11 col l oquyfr om goi ng aw r y . R ather , i ti s a s um m aryof l es s ons dr aw n fr om col l oqui es eval uat ed byot herC our t s of A ppeal s . T he over ar chi ng rul e i s t hata di s t r i ctcour tcons i der i ng a pac kage p lea d ea l sho u ld b e p arti cu larl yatt en ti v e to a d ef en d an t’ s r es pons es t o vol unt ar i nes s ques t i ons t hr oughouta pl ea c o llo q u y . T h a t b e in g sa id , d istric t co u rts o f c o u rse sh o u ld re m e m b e r th a t p a c k a g e d e a l p lea b a rg a in s a re n o t in h e re n tly coer ci ve, and thatt he j udge’ s goal i s nott o doom t he dea l but s i m p l y t o e n s u r e t h a tt h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p l e a i s v o l u n t a r y. W e re c o g n ize th a t R u le 1 1 c o llo q u ies h a v e g ro w n in le n g th s in c e th e irf

o rm a l a d o p tio n , V

onn , 535 U
. S. at62, and w e o n ly ca u tio u s ly au g m e n t th e irm a n if o ld c o n s id e ra tio n s . U n itedS ta tes v . C lem e n ts , 9 9 2 F .2 d 4 1 7 , 4 2 0 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). N e v e rth e les s, w h e n th e g o v e rn m e n t risk s in d u c in g f a lse g u ilty p le a s b yp a c k a g in g p le a s to g e th e r, B or denki r cher , 434 U
. S. at 365 n. 8, j us t i ce a nd prudence r equi r e thatt he di s t r i ctcour tbe not i fi ed and pa ys peci al car e. III . For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence30 of the D i s t r i ctC our tand r emand D evi n H odge’ s cas e forr es ent enci ng orw i t hdr aw al of hi s gui l t ypl ea.