10-413

United States v. Woltmann 1 UNI TEDSTATE S COURT OF APPEALS 2 3 FOR THE S ECOND CIRCUI T 4 5 Aug ustTerm , 2 009 6 7 (Ar gue d: Jun e 9 , 2 010 D eci ded : July6, 20 10) 8 9 Doc ketNo. 10- 413 10 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 13 UNI TEDST ATE S O F AMER ICA , 14 15 App ell ee, 16 17 18 - v .- 19 GARY WOLT MANN, 20 21 Def end ant -Ap pel lan t. 22 23 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 25 Bef ore : JAC OBS , C hie f Judg e, WIN TERan d WALKER, 26 27 JR. , C irc uitJu dge s. 28 29 Def end ant -ap pel lan t G aryWo ltm annpl ed gui ltyinth e 30 Uni tedSt ate s D ist ric t C our t f or the Ea ste rn Dis tri ct of New 31 Yor k ( Pla tt, J. ) t o o ne cou nt of taxfr aud . Wol tma nn fil ed 32 a n oti ce of app eal ch all eng ingth e s ent enc e, andth e 33 gov ernmen t c oun ter ed wit h amo tio n t o d ism iss onth e b asi s 34 of the ap pea l w aiv er pro vis ioninth e p leaag ree men t. We 35 con clu de tha t t he wai veris un enf orc eab le, an d w e v aca te and 36 rem andtoa dif fer entdi str ictju dge fo r r e-s ent enc ing .2 1 2 RIC HAR D M . LANG ONE , L ang one & 3 Ass oci ate s, Lev itt own , N ew Yor k, 4 forAp pel lan t. 5 6 CHARLE S P . KELL Y, forLo ret ta E. 7 Lyn ch, Un ite d S tat es Att orn ey’ s 8 Off ice fo r t he Eas ter n D ist ric t 9 of NewYo rk, Br ook lyn , N ew Yor k, forAp pel lee . 10 11 12 13 DENNIS JACOB S, Chi ef Jud ge: 14 15 Def end ant -ap pel lan t G aryWo ltm annpl ed gui ltyinth e 16 Uni tedSt ate s D ist ric t C our t f or the Ea ste rn Dis tri ct of New 17 Yor k ( Pla tt, J. ) t o o ne cou nt of taxfr aud . Wol tma nn fil ed 18 a n oti ce of app eal ch all eng ingth e s ent enc e, andth e 19 gov ernmen t c oun ter ed wit h amo tio n t o d ism iss , c iti ng 20 Wol tma nn’ s w aiv er of app eal inth e p leaag ree men t ( “th e 21 Agr eement ”). W e c onc lud e t hatth e w aiv er is une nfo rce abl e, 22 andwe va cat e a nd rem andtoa dif fer entdi str ictju dge fo r 23 re- sen ten cin g. 24 25 I 26 Pur sua nt to the Ag ree men t, Wol tma nn ple d g uil ty in 27 Sep tember20 07. A fte r s ign ingth e Agre eme nt butbe for e 28 sen ten cin g, Wol tma nn pro vid ed sub sta nti al ass ist anc e t o t he 29 gov ernmen t i n i ts (ul tim ate ly suc ces sfu l) pro sec uti on ofSe cti on 5K1 .1 pro vid es tha t “ [u] ponmo tio n o f t he 1 gov ernmen t s tat ingth at the de fen dan t h as pro vid ed sub sta nti al ass ist anc e i n t he inv est iga tio n o r p ros ecu tio n of ano the r p ers on whoha s c omm itt ed an off ens e, the co urt mayde par t f romth e g uid eli nes .” 3 1 ano the r c rim ina l t ax fra ud cas e. Inex cha nge fo r t his 2 coo per ati on, th e g ove rnmentsu bmi tte d ale tte r t o t he 3 dis tri ct cou rt pur sua nt to U.S .S. G. § 5 K1. 1 “ urg [in g] the 4 Cou rt to con sid er formul ati ng a s ent enc e b elo w t he adv iso ry 5 gui del ine s” ran ge of 18 to 24 mon ths ’ i mpr iso nme nt. 1 6 At a D ece mbe r 1 1, 200 9 h ear ing(“ Dec emb er 11 Hea rin g”) , 7 def ens e c oun sel an d t he gov ernmen t u rge d t he dis tri ct cou rt 8 to con sid er the 5K 1.1 le tte r a nd the fa cto rs enumer ate d i n 9 18 U.S .C. § 355 3(a ) whenimpos ingse nte nce . Not wit hst and ing 10 the se pro mpt s, the di str ictco urtde eme d t he 5K1 .1 let teran 11 imp rop er eff ortbyth e p art ies tore pud iat e, mod ify , o r 12 ame nd the Ag ree men t, andru ledth at the Ag ree men t 13 con sti tut ed Wol tma nn’ s c ons enttoan y s ent enc e a t o r b elo w 14 27 mon ths (t he upp er lim it of the ap pea l w aiv er pro vis ion ). 15 Acc ord ing ly, th e j udg e d isc oun tedth e 5 K1. 1 l ett er andth e 16 oth er fac tor s e numera tedin§ 355 3(a ). 17 At a h ear ingonJa nua ry 22, 20 10 (“J anu ary22 18 Hea rin g”) , t he dis tri ct cou rt sen ten cedWo ltm annpr inc ipa lly 19 to 18 mon ths ’ i mpr iso nme nt (th e l ow endofth e G uid eli nes4 1 ran ge) . In sho rt suc ces sio n, Wol tma nn fil ed a n oti ce of 2 app eal inth is Cou rt; th e g ove rnmentmo vedtodi smi ss on the 3 bas is of the ap pea l w aiv er pro vis ioninth e Agre eme nt; an d 4 Wol tma nn mov ed forba il pen din g a ppe al. 5 On Apr il 7, 201 0, we gra nte d W olt man n’s ba il mot ion . 6 See United States v. Woltmann, 10-0413-cr (Apr. 7, 2010) 7 (order). The government’s motion to dismiss was then 8 submitted to this panel. Because the facts, rules, and 9 considerations that bear upon the motion likewise control 10 the merits of the underlying appeal, we heard oral argument 11 on the merits, and we resolve the merits together with the 12 motion: The government’s motion is denied, Woltmann’s 13 sentence is vacated, and the matter is remanded to a 14 different district court judge for re-sentencing. 15 16 II 17 Three provisions of the Agreement have bearing 18 on this appeal: 19 • Paragraph 2 states that the applicable 20 Guidelines term of imprisonment is 18-24 21 months. 22 23 • Paragraph 2 acknowledges that “the Guidelines 24 are advisory and the court is required to 25 consider any applicable Guidelines provisions 26 as well as other factors enumerated in 185 1 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to arrive at an appropriate 2 sentence in this case.” 3 4 • Paragraph 4 contains an appeal waiver 5 provision: “The defendant agrees not to . . . 6 appeal . . . the conviction or sentence in the 7 event that the Court imposes a term of 8 imprisonment of 27 months or below. This 9 waiver is binding without regard to the 10 sentencing analysis used by the Court.” 11 12 Provisions like these are common, and their inclusion in the 13 Agreement is unexceptional. 14 At the December 11 Hearing, the government reiterated 15 its position, expressed in the 5K1.1 letter, that the court 16 should impose a below-Guidelines sentence due to Woltmann’s 17 substantial assistance. See, e.g., Tr. of December 11 18 Hearing at 8. The district court refused. It viewed the 19 Agreement as the “governing” or “controlling” instrument, 20 e.g., id. at 4-5, and reasoned that the government’s 21 advocacy of a below-Guidelines sentence on the basis of the 22 5K1.1 letter was an impermissible attempt to “repudiate,” 23 “modify,” or “amend” the Agreement, e.g., id. at 5, 14. The 24 district court felt free to ignore the 5K1.1 letter and the 25 § 3553 factors because Woltmann had ostensibly “consented to 26 such and such a sentence” by agreeing both to the Guidelines 27 calculation in Paragraph 2 and the appeal waiver in 28 Paragraph 4. Id. at 6. In effect, the district court6 1 believed that because of the appeal waiver, anysentence at 2 or below 27 months was appropriate, regardless of whether or 3 how the 5K1.1 letter and the § 3553(a) factors--if 4 considered--would bear on the sentence. 5 At the Ja nua ry 22 sen ten cin g h ear ing , t he dis tri ct 6 cou rt sta tedth at it had“c ons ide redth e [ A]g ree men t t hat 7 was ma de wit h t he gov ernmen t a nd the pr ovi sio n t hatwe ju st 8 rea d, par agr aphfo ur [i. e., th e a ppe al wai verpr ovi sio n], 9 andth e c our t f eel s t hatun derth e c irc ums tan ces he re and 10 the famil y c irc ums tan ces th at an 18 mon th sen ten ce is an 11 app rop ria te one .” Tr . o f J anu ary22 He ari ng at 12. T he 12 cou rt als o i nti mat ed, as itha d d one atth e D ece mbe r 1 1 13 Hea rin g, tha t c ons ide rat ionofth e 5 K1. 1 l ett er wou ld 14 con sti tut e a n i mpe rmi ssi ble re pud iat ionofth e Agre eme nt: 15 [De fen se Cou nse l]: I w oul d j ustli ke to poi nt 16 outtoth e c our t, jud ge, 17 fir st, th at all ofth e 18 gui del ine ca lcu lat ion s w ere 19 bas ed upo n a n e sti mat e 20 pri or to anyco ope rat ionor 21 5K1 le tte r. 22 23 The Co urt : Are yo u s ayi ng he wan ts to 24 rep udi ate th e p lea 25 agr eement ? 26 27 Id. at4 28 Wol tma nn fil ed a n oti ce of app eal , a nd the go ver nme nt7 1 mov es to dis mis s c iti ng the ap pea l w aiv er in Par agr aph4 of 2 the Ag ree men t. Wo ltm annintu rn arg ues th at the di str ict 3 cou rt’ s t rea tme nt of the 5K 1.1 le tte r a nd the § 355 3(a ) 4 fac tor s r equ ire s u s t o v aca te the se nte nce an d r ema nd for 5 re- sen ten cin g. We ag ree . 6 7 III 8 Plea agreements are reviewed “in accordance with 9 principles of contract law.” United States v. Vaval, 404 10 F.3d 144, 152 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks 11 omitted). We consider “the reasonable understanding of the 12 parties as to the terms of the agreement.” United States v. 13 Colon, 220 F.3d 48, 51 (2d Cir. 2000). Moreover, because 14 plea agreements are “unique contracts, . . . we temper the 15 application of ordinary contract principles with special due 16 process concerns for fairness and the adequacy of procedural 17 safeguards.” United States v. Granik, 386 F.3d 404, 413 (2d 18 Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Such 19 contracts are narrowly construed. Id. 20 It is a “well-settled legal principle that the 21 sentencing judge is of course not bound by the estimated 22 range in a plea agreement.” United States v. Hamdi, 4328 1 F.3d 115, 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks 2 omitted). To the contrary, before imposing sentence, a 3 district court must consider both a 5K1.1 letter (if one is 4 proffered), United States v. Campo, 140 F.3d 415, 418-19 & 5 n.5 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam), and the factors enumerated 6 in § 3553(a), Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 7 (2007). 8 Ord ina ril y, app eal wa ive rs are en for ced --a nd forgo od 9 rea son . See Un ite d S tat es v. Mor gan , 3 86 F.3 d 3 76, 38 0 ( 2d 10 Cir . 2 004 ) ( exp lai nin g t hatvo idi ng suc h w aiv ers “w oul d 11 ren derth e p leaba rga ini ng pro ces s a nd the re sul tin g 12 agr eementme ani ngl ess ” ( int ern al quo tat ionma rks om itt ed) ); 13 Uni tedSt ate s v . G ome z-P ere z, 215 F. 3d 315 , 3 18 (2dCi r. 14 200 0) (“[ T]h e b ene fit s o f s uchwa ive rs inu re to bot h 15 gov ernmen t a nd the de fen dan t a lik e, wit h t he gov ernmen t 16 rec eiv ingth e b ene fitofre duc ed lit iga tio n, andth e 17 def end antre cei vin g s ome ce rta int y w ithre spe ct to his 18 lia bil ityan d p uni shment .”) ; U nit ed Sta tes v. Ye mit an, 70 19 F.3 d 7 46, 74 7-4 8 ( 2d Cir . 1 995 ) ( “Ifth is wai verdo es not 20 pre clu de a c hal len ge to the se nte nce as un law ful , t henth e 21 cov ena nt nottoap pea l b eco mes me ani ngl ess an d w oul d c eas e 22 to hav e v alu e a s aba rga ini ng chi p i n t he han ds of9 1 def end ant s.” ). Bu t w e w ill no t e nfo rce anap pea l w aiv er 2 whe re- -as he re- -th e “ sen ten cin g d eci sio n . . . w as rea che d 3 in a m ann er tha t t he ple a a gre eme nt didno t a nti cip ate ,” 4 Uni tedSt ate s v . L iri ano -Bl anc o, 510 F. 3d 168 , 1 74 (2dCi r. 5 200 7); se e a lsoUn ite d S tat es v. Roque, 42 1 F .3d11 8, 123 -24 6 (2dCi r. 200 5) (su gge sti ng tha t a n a ppe al wai verwo uldbe 7 une nfo rce abl e i f t he def end antfa ile d t o “ und ers t[a n]dfu lly 8 the co nse que nce s o f h is bar gai n, bot h i n t erm s o f whathe 9 was ga ini ng andwh at he was gi vin g u p”) , o r wher e “ the 10 sen ten cin g c our t f ail ed to enu nci ate an y r ati ona le forth e 11 def end ant ’s sen ten ce, th us amo unt ingtoanab dic ati on of 12 jud ici al res pon sib ili ty sub jec t t o m and amu s,” Go mez -Pe rez , 13 215 F. 3d at 319 (b rac ket s a nd int ern al quo tat ionma rks 14 omi tte d). 15 App lyi ng the se pri nci ple s, we hol d t hatva cat ur is 16 requir ed bec aus e t he dis tri ct cou rt: (1 ) i mpr ope rly“r eli ed” 17 on the Ag ree men t t o t he exc lus ionofth e 5 K1. 1 l ett er and 18 the § 355 3(a ) f act ors ; a nd (2) mi sre ad the Ag ree men t a s 19 man ife sti ng Wol tma nn’ s e nfo rce abl e c onc ess ionth at any 20 sen ten ce at or bel ow 27 mon ths ob via tedth e n eedtoco nsi der 21 the 5K 1.1 le tte r a nd the § 355 3(a ) f act ors . In so doi ng, 22 the di str ictco urtfa ile d t o g ive ef fec t t o t he par tie s’10 1 exp ect ati ons an d d epr ive d W olt man n o f t he ben efi t t hathe 2 (an d t he gov ernmen t) agr eedhe wo uldre cei ve fro m s ign ing 3 the Ag ree men t ( i.e ., a w eig hin g o f t he 5K1 .1 let teran d t he 4 § 3 553 fa cto rs) . At the same time, the co urtal so 5 “ab dic ate d” its ju dic ial re spo nsi bil ityinth e w ay pos ite d 6 by Gomez- Per ez, 21 5 F .3dat31 9. 7 8 A 9 As the tr ans cri pt of the De cember11 He ari ng 10 unambi guo usl y s how s, the di str ictco urtfe lt its elfen tit led 11 to rel y o n t he Agr eementno twi ths tan din g o ur lawth at suc h 12 rel ian ce is mis pla ced . See Hamdi, 432 F.3d at 124. Fo r 13 exampl e, whe n t he gov ernmen t r ais ed the 5K 1.1 le tte r a t t he 14 out setofth e h ear ing , t he cou rt res pon ded : “ [T] his is al l 15 ver y g ood , b ut we hav e-- sta rti ng thi s c ase of f, wit h a n 16 agr eementth at youan d c oun sel fo r t he def end antma de, an d 17 sig nedbyth e d efe nda nt, an d a s f ar as I’mco nce rne d, tha t 18 is sti ll the go ver nin g i nst rumenthe re. . . . T he ple a 19 agr eementis th e c ont rol lin g i nst rument .” Tr . o f D ece mbe r 20 11 Hea rin g a t 4 -5. O the r e xample s a bou nd. S ee, e. g., id . 21 at 5 ( “[T he gov ernmen t], th e d efe nda nt, an d t he def ens e 22 law yerma de an agr eement , a nd tha t a gre eme nt has be en, inmy11 1 boo k, con tro lli ng rig ht fro m t he sta rt her e.” ); id. at7 2 (“[ A]s I see itatth e m ome nt, [t he Agr eement ] o ver rid es all 3 els e i n t his pi ctu re. ”); id . a t 1 1 ( “[Y ]ouma de an agr eement 4 andI’ m e nti tle d t o r elyonit .”) ; i d. at 15 (“I ’m tro ubl ed 5 by the go ver nme nt’ s p osi tio n t hatI mayig nor e t his 6 agr eement , whic h I do n’tth inkth at I c an or I m ay, I can , 7 butI mayno t.” ); id. at20 (“ Wha t i s c ont rol lin g i n m y b ook 8 is the ag ree men t. . . .” ). 9 Thi s ( imp rop er) re lia nce ca use d t he dis tri ct cou rt to 10 mis rea d t he Agr eementan d, as a r esu lt, toimpos e ase nte nce 11 inc ons ist entwi th the pa rti es’ expec tat ion s i n s ign ingth e 12 Agr eement . The Ag ree men t-- by its ow n t erm s, as it was 13 unambi guo usl y u nde rst oodbybo th par tie s, andas itwa s 14 ini tia llyun der sto od by the di str ictco urt --c ont emp lat ed 15 tha t s ent enc e w oul d b e i mpo sedon ly aft er th e d ist ric t c our t 16 con sid ere d t he 5K1 .1 let teran d t he § 3 553 (a) fa cto rs. S ee 17 Agr eement¶ 2 ( “Th e d efe nda nt und ers tan ds tha t . . . t he 18 Gui del ine s a re adv iso ry andth e c our t i s r equ ire d t o 19 con sid er anyap pli cab le Gui del ine s p rov isi ons [i .e. , 20 § 5 K1. 1] as wel l a s o the r f act ors en ume rat ed in 18 U.S .C. 21 § 3 553 (a) toar riv e a t a n a ppr opr iat e s ent enc e i n t his 22 cas e.” ); id. ¶ 3 ( “Th e G uid eli nes es tim ate se t f ort h i n12 1 [P] ara gra ph 2 i s n ot bin din g o n . . . t he Cou rt. ”); 2 Tra nsc rip t o f P leaCo llo quyat15 (S ept emb er 18, 20 07) 3 (di str ictco urtsumma riz ingPa rag rap h 2 ofth e Agre eme nt and 4 ens uri ng tha t W olt man n u nde rst oodth at his se nte nce wo uldbe 5 bas ed on “an y a ppl ica ble gu ide lin es tog eth er wit h t he 6 fac tor s c ont ain ed in 18 U.S .C. [§ ] 3 553 (a) ”); De cember11 7 Hea rin g a t 8 (g ove rnmentur gin g t he cou rt to imp ose a bel ow8 Gui del ine s s ent enc e p urs uan t t o t he 5K1 .1 let ter ); see al so 9 Tr. ofJa nua ry 22 Hea rin g a t 4 (d efe nse co uns el emp has izi ng 10 to the co urt“t hatal l o f t he gui del ine ca lcu lat ion s w ere 11 bas ed upo n a n e sti mat e p rio r t o a ny coo per ati on or 5K1 [.1 ] 12 let ter ”). 13 Mor eov er, th e g ove rnmentexpla ine d t o t he dis tri ct 14 cou rt tha t a lth oug h s ome pl ea agr eement s p rec lud e b oth 15 par tie s f romma kin g a ny mot ion s, thi s Agre eme nt didno t: 16 Thi s a gre eme nt doe s n ot pre clu de mot ion s b y a ny 17 par ty. O cca sio nal ly we wil l i nse rt in the se 18 agr eement s t hatth e p art ies ag ree th at no mot ion s 19 wil l b e f ile d i n c onn ect ionwi th the se nte nci ng. 20 Tha t s ent enc e i s n ot in thi s a gre eme nt. And sin ce 21 the si gni ng of the ag ree men t, Mr. Wo ltm annha s 22 coo per ate d, andI was --t he gov ernmen t w as simply 23 try ingtobr ingth at to the Co urt ’s att ent ionin 24 formul ati ng a s ent enc e. 25 26 Tr. ofDe cember11 He ari ng at 15- 16. T his om iss ionwa s 27 int ent ion al: T he gov ernmen t i nte nde d t o p res erv e i ts13 1 abi lit y t o o ffe r a5K 1.1 le tte r f or the co urt ’s 2 con sid era tio n a t s ent enc ing . 3 Not wit hst and ingal l t his , t he cou rt con clu dedth at, in 4 urg ingco nsi der ati on of the 5K 1.1 le tte r, the pa rti es wer e 5 imp rop erl y a tte mpt ingtore pud iat e o r m odi fy the Ag ree men t-- 6 andre pea ted ly reb uke d t hemfo r d oin g s o. Se e, e.g ., id. at 7 9 ( “[T ]he go ver nme nt is cha ngi ng its po sit ionhe re wit h 8 res pec t t o t his wa ive r.” ); id. at11 (s par rin g w ithth e 9 gov ernmen t a nd fin din g i t n ece ssa ry to “re ad [th e Agre eme nt] 10 to youag ainbe cau se youap par ent ly hav e n ot bee n r ead ing 11 it” ); id. at11 -12 (“ I n eve r h ad a c ase wh ere th e g ove rnment 12 has ma de a f irmag ree men t a nd the n g oes ou t a nd tri es to 13 mod ifyit , i n e ffe ct. ”); id . a t 1 3 ( “[T he gov ernmen t i s] 14 try ingtomo dif y t hatag ree men t.” ); id. at14 (“ [Th e 15 gov ernmen t] can ’t ame nd it thi s w ay, as I see it .”) ; i d. at 16 15 (“And to att emp t t o m odi fy tha t a gre eme nt in thi s f ash ion 17 I f indve ry tro ubl ing .”) ; i d. at 16 (“I do n’tth inkth at you 18 canmo dif y t his ag ree men t t hatyo u m ade he re. ”). 19 In eff ect , t he cou rt ref use d t o c ons ide r t he 5K1 .1 20 let teran d t he § 3 553 (a) fa cto rs on the gr oun d t hatth e 21 app eal wa ive r a nd the se nte nci ng ran ge in the Ag ree men t 22 obv iat ed any thi ng els e. Th is err one ous co ncl usi on den ied14 1 the pa rti es the ir bar gai n a nd rea son abl e e xpe cta tio ns. I n 2 thi s w ay, th e d ist ric t c our t e rre d, andth e a ppe al wai ver 3 pro vis ionis un enf orc eab le. L iri ano -Bl anc o, 510 F. 3d at 4 174 ; R oqu e, 421 F. 3d at 123 -24 . 5 6 B 7 The di str ictco urtmi sco nst rue d t he Agr eementas an 8 enf orc eab le con ces sio n b y W olt man n t hatan y s ent enc e a t o r 9 bel ow 27 mon ths wa s a ppr opr iat e-- wit hou t r ega rd to any5K 1.1 10 let teran d t he § 3 553 (a) fa cto rs . For example, the 11 following colloquy took place at the December 11 hearing: 12 [Prosecutor]: [T]he government does not 13 believe that [the 5K1.1 letter] 14 affects the plea agreement in 15 any way. However, when the 16 Court moves to set a sentence 17 under 3553(a), we ask the Court 18 to consider a sentence below the 19 guidelines in part because of 20 the cooperation of Mr. Woltmann. 21 So I think it plays a role in 22 the second step, when you get to 23 the 3553(a) factors. 24 25 The Court: What need do I have to get to 26 that level when I have a plea 27 agreement where he has consented 28 to such and such a sentence? 29 30 [Pr ose cut or] : Wel l, wha t’s be en con sen tedto 31 andag ree d t o i s t he gui del ine s. 32 33 The Co urt : No. N o.15 1 Dec emb er 11 Hea rin g a t 6 -7 (empha sis ad ded ). Si mil arl y: 2 3 [Pr ose cut or] : [P] ara gra ph 4 o f t he ple a 4 agr eement. . . is si mpl y a 5 wai verofap pea l o r c hal len ge to 6 the se nte nce . All itdo es is 7 seta cei lin g b elo w whic h t her e 8 can notbe an y a ppe al. . . . I t 9 is notanag ree men t t o a 10 sen ten ce of tha t l eng th. I t i s 11 simplya wai verofap pea l. Wh at 12 the pa rti es hav e a gre ed wit hin 13 the ag ree men t i s t hatth e 14 gui del ine s a re 18 to 24 mon ths , 15 andth en if the Co urtac cep ts 16 tha t a nd mov es fro m t he 17 agr eementto35 53, an d c ons ide rs 18 the fa cto rs und er 355 3, the 19 gov ernmen t b eli eve s o ne of the 20 fac tor s i s M r. Wol tma nn’ s 21 coo per ati on, wh ichth e 22 gov ernmen t b eli eve s w arr ant s a 23 sen ten ce bel ow the 18 to24 24 mon th gui del ine . 25 26 The Co urt : Tha t i s alo t o f d oub le- tal k 27 whe n y ou getri ghtdo wn to [it ]. 28 29 Id. at8. And aga in: 30 31 [Pr ose cut or] : The re’ s a n a ppe al wai verupto 32 27 mon ths . Tha t w as nev er a 33 sen ten cin g r eco mme nda tio n o f t he 34 gov ernmen t. Th ere ’s a g uid eli ne 35 of 18 to 24 mon ths . Tho se two 36 fac ts come o ut of the pl ea 37 agr eement . At tha t p oin t when 38 the Co urten ter s i ts 355 3 39 ana lys is, th e g uid eli nes [a re] 40 one ofth e t hin gs tha t t he 41 Cou rt- -on e o f t he ite ms tha t t he 42 Cou rt loo ks at in formul ati ng a 43 sen ten ce. S o t her e’s a 44 gui del ine of18 to24 mo nth s,16 1 andth en one ofth e t hin gs the 2 Cou rt con sid ers -- 3 4 The Co urt : Wha t y ou’ re say ingis th at thi s 5 is, I’ m n ot ent itl ed to rel y o n 6 the ag ree men t t hatth e d efe nda nt 7 has ma de. 8 9 [Pr ose cut or] : Youar e e nti tle d t o r elyonit . 10 He has wa ive d h is app eal an d a ny 11 cha lle nge toitfo r ase nte nce 12 up to 27 mon ths . He agr ees th at 13 the gu ide lin es are 18 to24 14 mon ths . Tho se twoth ing s a re 15 agr eed . Butth en the Co urtis 16 requir ed to mov e u nde r G all , 17 G-A -L- L, ove r t o t he 355 3. 18 19 The Co urt : I d on’ t h avetodoanyth ing if I 20 have t hisagreemen t. Bec aus e 21 it’ s n ot cha lle nge abl e a cco rdi ng 22 to you , t he agr eementit sel f. 23 24 [Pr ose cut or] : Butth e a gre eme nt doe sn’ t 25 con tai n a ny sen ten cin g 26 rec ommend ati on. 27 28 The Co urt : The ag ree men t s ays he ma y n ot 29 cha lle nge an yth ingth at the 30 Cou rt doe s . . . i n t he eve nt 31 the Co urtimpos es a t ermof 32 imp ris onmentof27 mo nth s o r 33 bel ow. T his wa ive r i s b ind ing 34 wit hou t r ega rd to the se nte nci ng 35 ana lys is use d b y t he Cou rt. T he 36 def end antwa ive s a ll def ens es 37 . . . . You ’re tr yin g t o m odi fy 38 tha t a gre eme nt. 39 40 [Pr ose cut or] : No. T he fac t-- 41 42 The Co urt : I d on’ t t hin k y ou may . 43 44 [Pr ose cut or] : The fa ct tha t n obo dy can17 1 cha lle nge itdo es notme an tha t 2 it’ s t he app rop ria te sen ten ce or 3 tha t a nyb ody

-- 4 5 The Co urt : It’ s n ot a ques tio n o f a n 6 app rop ria te sen ten ce. I t i s 7 app rop ria te by bot h s ide s[’ ] 8 agr eem entif it ’s 27 mon thsor 9 bel ow. 10 11 [Pr ose cut or] : Wel l, notth at it’ s a ppr opr iat e, 12 butth at no one wi ll app eal it 13 or cha lle nge itinan y w ay. 14 15 Id. at12 -14 (e mph ase s a dde d). 16 The di str ictco urt ’s act ion s “ amo unt [ed ] t o a n 17 abd ica tio n o f j udi cia l r esp ons ibi lit y,” Go mez -Pe rez , 2 15 18 F.3 d a t 3 19, re qui rin g u s t o d eemth e a ppe al wai ver 19 une nfo rce abl e. Th e m and ate ofCampo , 1 40 F.3 d a t 4 18- 19 & 20 n.5 , a nd Gal l, 552 U. S. at 49- 51, is th at a d ist ric t c our t 21 mus t c ons ide r a5K 1.1 le tte r a nd the § 355 3(a ) f act ors wh en 22 formul ati ng the ap pro pri ate se nte nce . Ref usa l t o c ons ide r 23 the se thi ngs is aner rorca teg ori cal ly dif fer entfr om a 24 mis app lic ati on of a g uid eli ne, ora mis tak e o f l aw, ora 25 dub iou s f ind ingoffa ct. Whatha ppe nedhe re is in the 26 cat ego ry of err or con templa tedinGo mez -Pe rez , 2 15 F.3 d a t 27 319 , whic h s tat es tha t a n a ppe al wai veris un enf orc eab le 28 whe n t he dis tri ct cou rt abd ica tes it s duti es in imp osi ng 29 sen ten ce.18 1 2 IV 3 On rem and , W olt man n’s re -se nte nci ng sho uldpr oce ed 4 bef ore a dif fer entdi str ictco urtju dge . 5 Thr ee con sid era tio ns gui de ouran aly sis : “ (1) wh eth er 6 the or igi nal ju dge wo uldre aso nab ly be exp ect ed upo n r ema nd 7 to hav e s ubs tan tia l d iff icu ltyinpu tti ng outofhi s o r h er 8 min d p rev iou sly -expre sse d v iew s o r f ind ing s d ete rmi nedtobe 9 err one ous , ( 2) whe the r r eas sig nme nt is adv isa ble topr ese rve 10 the ap pea ran ce of jus tic e, and(3 ) whet herre ass ignmen t 11 wou ld ent ail wa ste an d dupl ica tio n o ut of pro por tio n t o a ny 12 gai n i n p res erv ingth e a ppe ara nce offa irn ess .” Un ite d 13 Sta tes v. He rna nde z, 604 F. 3d 48, 55 -56 (2 d C ir. 20 10) 14 (in ter nal qu ota tio n m ark s, bra cke ts, an d e lli pse s o mit ted ). 15 The se con sid era tio ns fav or rea ssi gnment . 16 1. In lig ht of the sc ornwi th whi ch Jud ge Pla tt 17 app roa che d t he mat ter s p ert ain ingtose nte nci ng, we ha ve 18 con sid era ble do ubtas towh eth er on rem andhe wo uldgi ve 19 fai r c ons ide rat iontoth e 5 K1. 1 l ett er andth e §35 53( a) 20 fac tor s. Ou r d oub t i s r ein for cedbyev ent s a t t he Dec emb er 21 11 Hea rin g, whe n t he dis tri ct cou rt con sid ere d i tse lf to be 22 (inte rms oref fec t) a p art y t o t he Agr eement , o r a19 1 ben efi cia ry of the ap pea l w aiv er. F or exampl e, the co urt 2 dec lar ed: “I amen tit ledtore ly on an agr eement . I w antto 3 mak e t hatab und ant ly cle ar tha t’s mypo sit ion .” Tr . o f 4 Dec emb er 11 Hea rin g a t 2 2; see al so id. at11 (“ [Th e 5 gov ernmen t] mad e a n a gre eme nt andI’ m e nti tle d t o r elyon 6 it. ”). And: “[ The go ver nme nt] ma de an agr eement wit h 7 respec t t o a ll thr ee of us . . . ,” id. at14 (e mph asi s 8 add ed) . 9 The di str ictco urt ’s str ang e m isc onc ept ionofit s r ole 10 vis -a- vis th e p art ies an d t he Agr eementma y e xpl ainth e 11 cou rt’ s a sse rte d r igh t t o “ rel y” on the Ag ree men t, andit s 12 con spi cuo us fru str ati on at wha t t he cou rt vie wed 13 (er ron eou sly ) a s t he par tie s’ att emp t t o r epu dia te or mod ify 14 the Ag ree men t. Ital so cas ts dou bt on the ab ili ty of the 15 jud ge on rem andtosu ppr ess a vie w o f t he Agr eementpr emi sed 16 on his ow n c lai m o f r igh t. 17 2. In con sid eri ng the ap pea ran ce of jus tic e, we mus t 18 con sid er Jud ge Pla tt’ s p att ernofer rorre gar din g 5 K1. 1 19 let ter s. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v. Do e, 348 F. 3d 64 (2dCi r. 20 200 3) (pe r c uri am) ; C amp o, 140 F. 3d 415 . 21 3. Fin all y, rea ssi gnmentwo uldno t w ast e s ubs tan tia l 22 jud ici al res our ces , b eca use al l t he dis tri ct cou rt mus t d o20 1 on rem andis wh at dis tri ct cou rts doas a mat terofro uti ne: 2 con sid er the 5K 1.1 le tte r a nd the § 355 3(a ) f act ors , a nd 3 imp ose se nte nce ac cor din gly . 4 5 CONCLUSION 6 Forth e f ore goi ng rea son s, we vac ate th e s ent enc e a nd 7 rem andfo r r e-s ent enc ingbe for e adi ffe ren t d ist ric t c our t 8 jud ge.