NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0070n.06 F iled: Janu ary 23, 2008 Case No. 06- 1973 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. YUSEF D ANOU, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE E ASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEF ORE: BA TC HELD ER , M OORE and CO LE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. On Novembe r 29, 2005, Plaintiff-Appe llee United States Gover

nment (“G overnme nt”) filed a n in fo rmation cha

rg ing D efe ndant-Appe llant Yu se f D ano u ( “ Da

no u” ) w ithide nti ty

the ft in v io lation o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 10 28 (a )( 7) and int e nt t o commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Danou wa ived prosec ution by indictment and
e ve ntu a lly

ple a de d guil ty to ide nti ty

the ft purs ua nt t o a Rul e 11 Ple a

Ag re e me nt ( “ Ag re e me nt” ) w ith the Gover nment . After

his sentencing , Danou f

iled this ti mely

appea l, raising three issues for re view. First, Da nou contends that he did not validly waive indictment in open court. Second, he c laims that the district court e rre d in sentencinghim after he withdrew his guilty plea. Third, Danou a rgues that the Gover nment violated the Ag ree ment. For the re asons set for

th below, we AF F IRM
. I. BACKG ROUND2

Danou sig ned a w aiver

of indictment form that states, in re levant par t, that Danou “he reby waives in open Court pr osecution by I ndictment and conse nts and ag ree s that the proce eding may be by I nformation.” O n J anuar y 31, 20 0 6 , Danou sig ned a doc ument acknow ledg ing that he had
rec eived, re ad , and under stood the information and its contents. F urthermor e, Da nou’s orig inal counsel, David S teing old (“Steing old”), stated at the arr aig nment that he filed D anou’s wa iver of ind ic tme nt f

or m w iththe c ourt . On Fe bruar

y 2, 2006, Danou plea ded guilty to identity theft, pursuant to the Ag ree ment that he and the Gover

nment had ex ecute d. That Ag ree ment had orig inally stipulated to an offe nse-leve l calc ulation that y ielded a Guidelines rang e of 30 -3 7 m o n t hs, in acc ordanc e with the Prese ntence Report’s Guidelines w ork sheets, which, among other things, gra nted Danou a thre e-le vel re duction for acc eptanc e of r esponsibility and stated that neither pa rty would advoca

te for a sentenc e outside the 30-37 month rang e or a ppeal if the court imposed a se ntence within that rang e. At the outset of the plea hear ing, appar ently at Danou’ s reque st, the parties marke d out the specific rang e of 30- 37 months, and ag ree d to leave to the district c ourt the task of calc ulating the appropr iate Guidelines rang e. The Ag ree ment was then f iled. On Marc h 21, 2006, Steingold moved to withdra w as c ounsel for Danou bec ause D anou insisted that St eing old claim — contra ry to the fac ts — that he had reac hed a de al with the Governme n t n o t t o in d ic t D an o u . St e in g o ld e v e n tu a ll y

w it h dr e w an d

D an o ur e ta in e d

a s e cond attorney , Richard L

ustig (“ Lustig” ). There afte r, on April 14, 2006, Danou filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, c laiming that the Gover nment had promised not to indict him if he made whole the elder ly victim of his f raud by deedingback to him the prope rty Danou ha d stolen by

identity theft. The district c ourt held a3

hear ing in a ccor dance with Sa nto be llo v . Ne w York, 4 04 U. S. 257 (1 97 1) , to de te rm ine the me ri ts of Danou’s claim. At the hearing Steingold testified that, de spite his best effor ts, he had not bee n able to re ach a

ny such ag ree ment with the Gover nment. The district cour

t concluded that the alleg ed de a l ne ve r e xiste d and that the Go ve rnme nt ha d ne ve r pr omi se d Da no u he wo uld no t se rv e tim e in pr iso n if he re pa id the vic tim
. Ad dit ion a lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th a t D ano u h a d v olu nta ri ly ple a de d guil ty

to i de nti ty

the ft
. On May 24, 2006, prior to sentenc ing, the d i s trict court se nt the parties a letter infor

ming t h em t h at i ti n t en d edt o re j ec tt h e Agr ee m en tb ec au s e i tb el i ev edt h e 3 0 -3 7 m o n t hGu i d el i n es ra n ge was inade quate to re flec t the serious nature of Da nou’s cr ime. The dist rict court advised L ustig that he sh ou ld dis c us s wi th Da no u his ri g ht to wi thd

ra w h is guil ty

ple a in a c c or da

nc e wi th F e d. R. C ri m. P. 1 1( c )( 5) (B ). Lus tigre sp on de d w itha le tte r to t he dis tr ic t c ourt

ind ic a tin g that D ano u w ante d to withdraw his guilty

plea. The Gover

nment, howeve r, informed the district c ourt that bec ause the parties had de le te d

th e 3 0
- 3 7 mo n th

p r o v is io n , th e A g r e e me n t d id n o t b in d th e c o u rt t o th e 3 0
- 37 month Guidelines rang e ca lculation, but allowed the court to determine the Guidelines r ang e. The Guide li n e w o r

k s h e e ts , th e G o v e r

n me n t p o inte d

o u t, me r e ly

p r o v id e d a s u g g e s te d

r an g e th a t t

he district c ourt could choose or reje ct, and Danou’ s g uilty plea was not c onditioned on t h e 30-37 month Guide l i n es ra n ge. Consequently , the district court a cce pted the Ag ree ment and Da nou’s g uilty plea. OnJu n e 6 , 2 0 0 6 , D an o uf il e d a s e c o n d mo ti o na tt e mp ti n g to w it h dr aw h is g u il ty

p le a, claiming in this motion that he had not va lidly waived indictment be cause he did not do it in “open court.” After

a hea ring on the motio n , the district court issued a n opinion and order

on J une 20, 2006, denying D anou’s se cond motion beca use Da nou had filed a document in open cour t, waiving4

“prose cution by

I ndictment and conse nt[ ing] and a g ree [i ng ] t hat the proc eeding s may be by I nformation.” I

n that opinion, the district c ourt also conc luded that Danou’ s conduct followingthe prepa ration of the Pre sentenc e I nvestig ation Report and the pl ea hear ing demonstrated that he was not entitled to any

redu ct i o n for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty , and that the a ppropriate Guidelines
ra ng e wa s 4 1- 51 months
. At the sentenc ing he aringon J uly 6, 2006, Danou spoke at leng th to the fac t that he had be en wrong ed by

his attorney s an d t h at he was innocent. The district court, af ter c onsideringall of Danou’ s motions, requests for he aring s, and denia ls of g uilt, reaff irmed its decision to deny Danou any benef it for ac cepta

nce of responsibility . The Assist ant United States Attorney (“A USA”) prosec uting the c ase a g ree d, saying “ So Ithink this Court’s decision to deny him acc eptanc e fr om responsibility and — and sentenc e him a ccor ding to the fac t that he is simpl y not rea dy to move on is e n ti r e ly

a p p r o p r iate . ” T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt t h e ns e n te n c e d

D an o uto 4 8 mo n th s ’ in c ar c e r a tion. Fur thermore , the district c ourt allowed L ustig, to withdraw

from the c ase. D anou filed this appe al t h e s am e d ay. II. AN AL YSI S A. Danou valid ly w aived prosecution by in dictm ent. The Gover

nment can char g e a criminal defe ndant by information if the de fenda nt, after being
a dv ise d o f h is r ig hts and

the natur e of the c ha

rg e , wa ive s in

op e n c ourt

pr os e c uti on

by ind ic tme nt. F e d. R. C ri m. P . 7 (b ). Da no u c or re c tly c on c e de s th at th e ri g ht t o b e pr os e c ute d b y ind ic tme nt is a rig ht that can be waived. See U nited States v. Cotton , 5 35 U. S. 6 25 , 6 30 (2 00 2) (c iti ngF e d. R. C ri m. P. 7(b)). But Danou contends that he did not va lidly waive that rig ht beca

use the doc ument he filed wi th t he c ourt wa ivi ngind ic tme nt d oe s n ot c on sti tut e a wa ive r i n o pe n c ourt . An d be c a us e he did5

not validly

waive pr osecution by

in d i ct ment, Danou c laims, the district court did not have j u ri s d i ct i o no v er

h i s p ro s ec u t i o n . C i t i n g Goode v . United States , 305 F.3d 378, 386 ( 6th Cir. 2002) (“Ajurisdictional defe ct cannot be waived or proce durally defa ulted — rathe r, a jurisdictional defec t require s reve rsal.”) , Danou argues that this lac k of jurisdiction is a defe ct that cannot be waived, a nd his conviction must therefor e be r ever sed. I t is c le ar, ho we ve r, that D ano u d id w a ive prose cut ion by ind ic tme nt i n o pe n c ourt . I t is sufficie nt for Rule 7(b) purposes that the de fenda nt file the writ t en waiver of indictment in open court. Kossin v. United States , 235 F.2d 188, 189 ( 6th Cir. 1956). Danou did so. I t is not necessar y that he also execute that waiver in open cour

t. Id
. Our sis te r c ir c uit s p ro vid e ill umi natio n o n th is point. The F if

th Ci r c u it h a s h e ld th a t t w o d e f e n d an ts v a li d ly

w a iv e d in d ic tm e n t wh e nth ey acquie sced, by not obje cting , to the in-court f iling of w aiver -of- indictment forms they had sig ned, reg ardle ss of whether the defe ndants actua lly executed those documents in court. United States v. Mo or e , 3 7 F .3 d 1 69 , 1 73 (5 th Cir
. 19 94 ). Th e Te nth Cir c uit ha s h e ld t

hat a wa ive r c omp lie d w ith Rule 7( b ) w h e r e th e d e f

e n d an t an d h is la

w y e r s ign e d th e w a iv e r f o r m a n d f il e d it w it h the court befor e the a

rra ignme nt. Ching v

. United S tates , 2 9 2 F
. 2 d 3 1 , 3 2 ( 1 0 t hC i r . 1 9 6 1 )
. C o n s e qu e n t l y, it is i mmaterial that Da

nou did not sign the waiver of indictment in open court. Be cause he filed the waiver form with the cour

t and stated that fa ct to the cour t at the arr aig nment, we c onclude that he
wa ive d in op e n c ourt

pr os e c uti on

by ind ic tme nt. Danou f urther c laims that the district court erred by not informing him of the nature of the char g es and of his r ight to pr ocee d by way of indictment. Rule 7( b), howe ver, doe s not require that the district court provide this infor mation to the defe ndant. Mo or e , 37 F.3d at 173. “[T] here is no
rea son why

the re quisite advice c annot come f rom defe nse counse l,” the usual sourc e. Id . (citing6

Un ite d States v. L ibo ro , 10 F.3d 861, 863 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ). So long as someone informed Da nou of the c harg es and of

his rights, he could validly waive pr osecution by

indictment. Danou does not
c la im that Ste ing old

fa ile d to e xpla in t

he c ha rg e s to him . N or

do e s D ano u c la im that Ste ing old did not inform him of his r ight to pr ocee d by indictment. There fore , we f ind that Danou wa s awa

re of the nature of the c harg es and of his right to proc eed b y indictment. Accor dingly , we hold that Danou’ s written waive r wa s sufficient to allow the pr osecution to proce ed by information. B. Danou did not w ithdraw his gu ilty plea. A district court must g ive the defe ndant an opportunity to withdraw his g uilty

plea if the court
re je c ts a ple a a g re e me nt int o whi c h the de fe nd ant an d the Go ve rnme nt have e nte re d. F e d. R. C ri m. P. 11(c)( 5)(B ). Da

nou b el i ev es that Lustig’s le tter to the district court attempting to withdraw Da no u’ s guil ty

ple a wa s su ff ic ie nt t o c on sti tut e a

wi thd ra wa l of the ple a . T he dis tr ic t c ourt , howeve r, re alizing that it had re ad th e Agr ee m ent i ncorr ectly , acc epted the A g ree ment and sent Da no u a le tt er indic a tin g that he did no t ha ve the a bil ity to w ith dr aw h is p le a

in a c c or da

nc e wi th Rul e 11 (c )( 5) (B ). Mo re ov e r, the dis tr ict cou rt den ie d b oth of Da no u’ s mo tio ns to w ith dr aw h is g uilty plea, clear ing up any confusion under which Da nou may have la bored. We hold that Da

nou did not withdraw his g uilty plea. C. The Gove rnm ent did n ot breac h the Agre em ent. Da n o ucl ai m s t h at t h e Go v ern m en t b re ac h ed t h e Agr ee m en t wh en , at t h e se n t en ci n g h ea ri n g, the AUSA agree d with the district court that Danou should not benef it f rom a Guidelines re duction for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty . Whil e the Guide lines workshee ts attache d t o t h e Ag ree ment
s p e c i f i c a l l y r e c o m m e n d e d

g r an t i n g D an o u a

t h r e e - l e v e l r e d

u c t i o nf o r a c c e p t an c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, the district court re fused to g rant Da nou that reduc tion because subsequently , he had a cted in a7

manner inconsistent with acce ptance of re sponsi b i l ity . Specifica lly , Danou r epudiated his swor n testimony at the plea hear ing and denied his guilt, say ing instead that he and his victim had entere d into a land sale c ontrac t. Furthe rmore, D anou filed two motions to withdraw his g uilty plea. Da nou does not claim that the district cour t erred wh en it ref

used to g rant him a thre e-le vel re duction. Rather, Da

nou claims that the Government breache d the Agre ement when it ag ree d with the district
co u rt ’s d ec i s i o nat t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g. A plea a g ree ment is a contra ct betwe en the Government a nd the def endant, a nd we inter

pret such ag ree ments using the traditional principles of contra ct law. United St ates v. Luske , 286 F.3d 906, 909 (6th Cir. 2002) (c iting United States v. Robison , 924 F.2d 612, 613 ( 6th Cir. 1991)). “ The content of a

plea a g ree ment and what the parties ag ree d to is a question of fact for the district court that is reviewe d for cl ea r error.” Id . (interna l citations omit ted). We start with the proposition, though, that the Gover

nment may not br eac h plea ag ree ments. Id . at 913 (c iting Sa nto be llo , 4 04 U. S. 257). I n the ca se at ba

r, the Gove rnment ag ree d not to “seek, rec ommend or advoc ate f or a se ntence outsi d e o f

” th e 3 0
- 3 7 mo n th

G u id e li n e s r an g e . T h a t p r o mi s e s u r v iv e d th e mo d if

ic a ti o no f the Ag ree ment. T h er ef

o re , even thoug h the Ag ree ment was not conting ent on the district cour t’s calc ulating the Guidelines ra ng e at 30- 37 months or sentencingDano u wi t hin that rang e, the Gover nment was still r equire d to a bide by its obli g ation not to seek a se ntence outside of that ra ng e. We will hold t he Gove rnment to the promises it made, but we will not hold t he Gove rnment to pr omi se s it did not

make. Un ite d S

tates v . B arre tt , 890 F.2d 855, 863- 64 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Un ite d S tates v . F e ntr ess , 792 F.2d 46 1 , 4 6 4 (4 t h Cir. 1986)) (e mphasis added) . I n this case, the Gover nment mere ly

ag ree d with the di strict court’s conclusion that, g iven Danou’s actions af ter the8

parties e x ecute d the Ag ree ment, he should not benef it from a reduction in his offense level for
acc eptanc e of responsibility
. Whil e the AU SA would have be en better advised to say

nothing a bout the district court’s de cision not to gra nt Danou the thre e-le vel re duction, the district court ha d alre ady
ann ounc e d th a t de te rm inatio n in its June 20 , 20 06 , op ini on and or de r, mor e that tw o w e e ks pr ior to the J uly 6 sent en ci n g h ea ri ng at which the AUSA made the statement. The G overnme nt never pr omi se d n ot t o a g re e wi th t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s sent e nc ingde te rm ina tio n; i t on ly

pr omi se d n ot t o
a dv oc a te fo r a

se nte nc e a

bo ve that r e c omm e nd e d o n th e Gu ide lin e s wo rk sh e e ts. Th e re fo re , w e ho ld that th e Go ve rnme nt d id n ot b re a c h th e Ag re e me nt. III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM Danou’ s conviction and sente nce.