## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 2053 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D EWA Y NE E UGE NE W HIT E , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 2:08- CR-00003-JTM

—Jam es T. Moo dy, Judg e.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 15, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 5, 2010

Befo re W OO D , E VANS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . P ur s ua ntt o a wr i t t e n pl e a a g re em ent with the gov er nm ent, D ew ayne W hi te ple d gui l ty to one count of dist ributi ng cra ck coca i ne. A fter th e p lea w as accepte d by the j ud ge, but bef or e s entenci ng, bo th p ar tie s le ar n ed t h at W h ite ’s c rim in al h ist or y m ad e h im i ne l i g ibl e f o r a “ sa fety v al ve ” r edu ct i o n, whi ch, i n tur n, ne g at ed th e pr ac ti ca l effec t o f th e two o ther reduc ti o ns th e g o ve r nm en t ha d a g r ee d t o s uppo r t. Upon l ea r ni ng2 N o. 09

- 2053 th is n ew s, W h ite filed a m ot i on se ek in g t o w ith d ra w h is p l e a o n th e b a s i s o f th i s “ mu t u a l mi s t a k e . ” T h e g o ve r nm en t o p p os ed th e m o t ion , arg u in g t h at th e p lea sh ou ld st an d b ec au se the “ m ut ua l mis ta k e” di d n ot affec t th e ess enti al ter m s of the agr eem ent and b ecause W hi te knew that the sa f etyval ve re du c tio n m i ght no t a pp l y. The dis tr i ct j ud ge s ym pathi zed with W hi te but deni ed hi s r equest. W hi te now appeal s. Back i n Decem ber20 07, DE A ag ent Antoni o Sm ith was wor k i ngunde r co ve r wi tha c o nfi den ti ali nf o r m an t to m ake a contr ol l ed purchase ofcr ack c oc ai ne. S m i th an d th e in for m an t w en t t o Q u in tin L e e ’ s r e sid en c e in H am m ond, In d ian a, to m ake the pu rchas e. Lee then te l ephone d W hi te , who s ai d tha t he woul d b r i ngthe cr ac kt o Le e. W hi te the n c al l ed hi s co defend an t, Antho ny M ot on , w h o a gr e e d t o c oo k u p th e c ra c k a n d h av e it avai lab l e. W hi te and M oto n drov e t o Lee’ s ho use tog etherand parked behi nd S m i th’ s v ehi cl e. Lee e nter ed M oto n’s ve hi cl e, and M oto n handed hi m 51

. 9 g ra m s o f cra ck coca i ne. Lee r etur ned to S m i th’ s v ehi cl e, ga ve Sm i th the d rugs , and obt ai ned $1, 500 ofbuy m oneyfro m Sm i th

. Le e g av e M o to n a nd W hi te $ 1, 30 0 o fthe b uy m o ne y b e f o r e r e t u r n i n gt o h i s h o u s e . Aft e r Mo t o n a nd W hi t e dr o v e a wa y, the Ha mm o nd p o l i c e per f o r med a tr a ffi c s t o p . Whi t e j u mpe d o u t o f th e mo v i n g c a r a nd fl ed on fo ot but w as eve ntual l y a pp re hended

. A di gi tal sc al e was f o und in h i s po ss es si o n. Shor tl y there after, W hi te w as i nd i cted o n one c ou nt o f kn ow ingly an d i nt en tionally d istribu ting fi fty or m ore gram s of crac k cocain e, in viol ation of 21 U

. S. C

. § 841(a)(1)

.N o. 09

- 2053 3

T o th e exten t that W hite’s m u tu al m istak e arg u m en t, if 1 succes sful, w ould resul t i n se tt ing as ide the plea agreem ent as a w h o le , w e en te rt a in it d es p ite th e ap p ea l w a iv er . S ee U n i te d Sta t es v. C i es l ow sk i, 41 0 F .3d 35 3 , 36 1 -6 2 (7t h C ir . 20 0 5 ). A f ew months l at er, W hi te r eached a pl ea a g r ee m en t wi ththe g o ve r nm en t. The pl ea a g r ee m en t o ut l i ne d the va r i o u s r i g h t s Wh i t e wo u l d b e wa i v i n gb y p l e a d i ng g ui l ty, i nc l udi ngthe r i g htt o reques t do cument s r el at i ng to hi s ca se f ro m the go ver nm ent and the r i ght t o appeal hi s co nvi cti on or se ntence. The ag re em ent a l so

1 detai l ed the gov er nm ent’ s pro m i ses as f ol l ows: C. The U ni ted S tat es ofA m er i ca a nd Ih av e a l so en tered i nt o t he f oll ow ing agreem en ts w hich are no t bi ndi ngupon the Co ur t, a nd Iunde r st an d that i fthe Court does not fo l l ow these agr eem ents Iwil l notbe al l owed to withdraw m y guil ty ple a;
a. Inrec og n itio n of m y ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility fo r m y o ffense conduct, Iam enti tl ed to a two po i nta nd, i fe l i g ibl e, a n a ddi ti o na l o ne poi nt r educti on i n offense l eve l f oracc eptance of re sp on sib ility ; ho w ev er , th e g ov er n m en t is not obl i gat ed to r eco m m end I r ecei ve the a cce pta nc e o fr es po ns ibi l i tyadj us tmenti fIde ny m y i nv o l ve m en t i n the o ffen se , g i ve c o nfl i ct i ngs ta te m en ts o fm y i nv o l ve m en t, o r e ng ag e i n a ddi ti o na l c r i m i na l c o nduc t i nc l udi ng any per sonaluse ofco ntro l l ed substa nces; b. The U ni ted S tat es ofA m er i ca a nd Iag re e that I a m r e s po ns ib l e f o r b e t we e n 5 0 a nd 15 0 net gr am s o fcr ack;4 N o. 09

- 2053

c. The U ni ted S tat es ofA m er i ca a nd Iag re e that i f m y c r i m i nal his t ory q ual i f i e s m e fors af

e ty v al ve t r e at m e nt, an d i f I sa ti sfy th e pr o vi si o n of the sa f ety v al ve s ta tu te pert aini ngt o pr o vi di ng i nfo rm ati on t o the g ov er nm ent, then the g overnm ent wil l r eco m m end that Iam el i gib le f o r a t wo- lev elr edu ct i o n un derthe U. S

. S en te nc i ngGui del i ne s pur su an t to s ec ti o ns 2D1. 1( b) ( 9) and 5C1. 2( a) and 1 8 U.S

. C. sect i on 3553 (f ); d. The U ni ted S tat es ofA m er i ca a nd Iag re e that I w as a m in or p ar tic ip an t in th e c h ar ge d cr im inal act i vi ty and that Iam el i gibl e f ora tw ol ev elr edu cti o n un derthe U. S

. S en te nc i ng G uid eli ne s p urs ua nt to section 3B 1.2( b);
e. The U ni ted S tat es ofAmeri ca r eco m m ends that th e C o u r ts h o u l d i mp o s e a s e n t e n c e upo n me equal to the m i ni m um o fthe appli cabl e guidelin e ra n ge [.] (E m p h as is a d d ed .) “Sa f ety val ve” tr eat m ent w as the keyto avo i ding the 1 0- yea r m andator y m i ni m um sente nce f or W hi te’s cr i m e. W i ththe a ddi ti o na l r edu ct i o ns f o r “ ac ce pta nc e o fr es po nsib ility ” a n d be in g a “m in or p ar tic ip an t,” W h ite co u ld have re cei ved a sente nce a s l ow as 46 m onths. Despi te the g overnm ent’ s pro m i ses , the ple a a gr eem ent a l so note d that the poss ibl e penal ty that coul d be i m posed up on W hite w as a m an d atory m inim um of 10 years im p ris on m en t a n d th at W h ite ’s a c tu al s en te n c e w ou ld be det er m i ned by th e co urt afteran invest i gat i on byN o. 09

- 2053 5 th e U. S

. Pr o ba ti o n Offi ce a nd co ns i der at i o n o fthe U

. S. S entenci ng Guidel i nes. A t hi s pl ea hear i ng, the dist ri ct j ud ge questi oned W hite r ega rdi ng hi s underst anding ofthe agr eem ent. W he n a sk ed when he l as t r ev i ew ed th e pl ea a g r ee m en t w i th h i s l a wy e r, Whi t e r e pl i e d, “ J us tb e f o r e the h e a r i ng, si r . ” He a l s o a g r e e d tha tthe a g r e e men twa s “ [ p] r e t ty f re sh” in hi s m i nd

. W hi te re sponded “Ten y ear s” w hen asked “W ha t’s you r un d erstan d ing of th e m an d atory m i ni m um te rm o f im pri sonm ent that y ou’ re f aci ng f or thi s cr i m e, the l ow es t poi nt?” The j ud ge and W hi te al so speci fi cal l y di scusse d the s afet y valve r educti on as f ol l ows: Q. You and the Gove rnm ent ha ve al so agr eed that th e Go v e r n me n tw i l l ma k e a n o nb i n d i n gr e c o mm en d at ion atse n te n c in g t h at you , if you qualif

y, re cei ve the b enefit of w hat’ s ca l l ed a s afety val ve; i s that r i ght? A

. Y es, sir. Q. And i

f you do r e ce i vet hat, as I und er sta nd i t, th at w ou ld take h im o u t of the m an d atory m i ni m um te n-y earte rm o fi m pri sonm ent? [W hite’s cou ns el] : T ha t’s correct, Y ou r H onor. Q. A nd yo u und er sta nd that ? A

. Y es, sir. ( Em pha si s adde d. ) W hi te a l so a ckno wl edg ed th atthe j ud ge w as “n ot going to be able to d eterm ine th e ad visory gu i del i ne se ntence f or[ W hi te] unti l aftera prese ntence6 N o. 09

- 2053

I ndee d, atthe pl ea he ar i ng, the di s t ri c tj udge aske d t he 2 gov ernm ent’ s counsel i fs he had review ed W hit e’ s cri m inal his tory, and she re spond ed in the affirm a tiv e. W e are uncle ar how the m i s t ake was m ade , butwe t ru s tthatthe gove rn m en tdoe s no tgo ar ound pr om i s i ng t o r ec om m en d re duct i ons thati t know s w il l not be avail able. re p or t h as be en co m p let ed .” T h e c ou rtev en t u a l ly ac c ep te d W h ite ’s g u ilty p lea , w ith b ot h p ar tie s a p p ar en tly bel i evi ng tha t he w oul d be eligibl e f orsa fetyval ve tr eat
m ent. 2 A few m on th s la ter, the proba ti on o ffi ce r el eas ed i ts prese nten ce r epor t. The r epor t ind i cate d that W hi te had be enc o nv i ct ed o ft wo mi sde m ea no r s f o r mar ij ua na posse ssi on, gi vi ng hi m two cr i m i nal hi sto rypoi nts. These cri m i nal hi sto rypoi nts m ade W hi te i neligibl e f or sa f ety v al ve t reatment, whi ch, i n tur n, pr ev en te d the tw o add i ti onalr educti ons the g ove rnm ent had ag re ed to supp or t fro m havi ng anyprac ti caleffe ct. A s a r esul t, W hi te’ s s entenci ng r ange w as 120 to 135 m onths. U p on se ein g t h e r e p o rt, W h ite m ov ed to w ith d ra w h is gui l ty ple a. H e ar gued that the parti es m ad e a “m utual m istake” that his crim inal history score w ou ld q ua li fy hi m fo r safetyval ve tr eat m ent. W hi te al so conte nd ed tha t, b e c a us e n o o ne e xp l a i ne d t o h i m t ha th i s f a i l ur e to qua l i fy f o r s afety v al ve t r ea tmentwoul d a l so r enderthe othe r re du cti ons i neffecti ve, he did not enter hi s p l ea
“ k n o wi n g l y a n d i n t e l l i g e n t l y . ” T h e d i s t r i c tj u d g e , h o weve r, f ound that the “m utual m i stake” did notam ount t o a “f ai r a nd j us t r ea so n” t o i nv al i dat e th e g ui l typl ea a ndN o. 09

- 2053 7 th atthe pl ea was “kno wi ng l y an d i nt el l i g en tl y ” m ade

. The cour t s entence d W hi te to the m andator y m i ni m um o f 120 m onths i m pri sonm ent. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s deni alo fW hi te’ s m oti on to wi th dr aw hi s g ui l typl ea fo r a n abus e o fdiscret i o n. U nit e d S t at e s v. Si l va , 1 22 F

. 3d 41 2, 4 14

- 15 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7)

. A fter a gui l ty ple a i s accepte d b ut bef ore s entenci ng, a defendant m ay w i thdraw his ple a upon sho w i ng a “f ai r a nd j us t r ea so n” f o r do i ngs o . F ed. R. Cri m . P. 11( d)( 2) ( B). Bu t i f ( as here ) the dist ri ct cour t condu cted a th o r o ug h Ru l e 11 c oll oqu y, the de fen dan t se ek i ng w i thdrawal fac es an “ uph i l l bat tl e. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. B enne tt, 332 F.3d 109 4, 1099 ( 7th Cir. 2003). B e c au se p lea agreem en ts are govern ed by ordin ary con t r a c tp r i nc i pl e s , a the o r y o fmutua l mi s t a k e may p ro vid e a ba sis for in va lid at in g a n ag re em en t. U ni t ed Sta tes v. B a rnes , 8 3 F

. 3d 93 4, 9 38 ( 7th C ir. 1 996 )

. To provi de such a basi s, however, the m u tu alm i sta ke m ust a ff ect the “es senti alpara m ete rs ” o fthe gui l ty pl ea, su ch as “[ t] he na tu r e o f th e ch ar g e to which the defen dan t pl ea ds, the f ac tu alb as i s forthe pl ea a nd the lim its of th e d ist r i c t c ou rt ’s s en te n c in g a u th or ity
. . . .” Id. ; see a lso Cie s l owsk i, 41 0 F. 3d at 362 ( “[ T]he m i sta ke ofbo th par ti es m ust g o to ‘ a ba si c as sum pti on o n w hi ch the c ontr act w as m ade [ w hi ch] has a m ate ri aleffect o n the a gr eed exchang e ofper f or m ances. ’ ”) ( ci ti ng Rest ate
m en t S ec o nd o fCo nt r ac ts § 1 52 ( 1) )

. Cr i ti ca l l y, “ [ t] he preci se nature o fthe pu ni shm ent that wil l be i m posed aftera ple a is e ff ecte d i s no t a l w ays an e sse nti alte rm o f the pl ea agr eem ent, ” al though i t can be, i f “the gui l ty ple a8 N o. 09

- 2053

W hi t e d o e s a r g u e th a tth e r e wa s a f a i l u r e o fc o n s i de r a t i on 3 bec aus e, “whi l e the gove rn m en tr ec ei ved a m other l ode of benef it s by virtue ofi ts agreem ent w ith W hit e, W hit e re c e i v ed ab solu tely no thin g b y v irtu e of his ag reem en t w ith the gover nm en t
. ” As the di s t ri c tc our tf ound, ho wever, the g ov ern m en t d id no t pr o m i se a sp ecific result, and W hite d oe s no t con ten d th at the go v ern m en t f ailed to car ry ou t its p ro m ises. is e x c h an ge d for t h e im p os itio n o f a sp ec ific s en te n c e . . . . ” B a rnes , 83 F .3d at93 8; seeFed

. R. Crim

. P. 11(c)(1)( C ). The m utual m i sta ke here l ed bo th par ti es to bel i eve th atW hi te woul d b e el i g ibl e for sa fety v al ve t r ea tment an d, a s a r es ul t, a s en te nc e be l o w the s ta tu tory m i ni m um coul d be i m posed. Thi s incor re ct e sti m ati on d oes not aff ect the ess enti alterm s ofW hi te’ s pl ea, however, bec ause it w as n otex c h an ge d for t h e im p os itio n of a s p ec ific s e nt e nc e . R a the r, the e s s e nt i a l p a r a met e r s o fthe a g r e em en t wer e th atW hi te woul d pl ea d g ui l tyt o the o ne count, gi ve up his rig h t t o re quest r eco rds fro m the gov ernm en t an d hi s r i g htt o a ppea l hi s s en te nc e, a nd re cei ve f avo rabl e, nonbi nd i ng r eco m m endati ons f ro m th e g o ve r nm en t, i nc l udi ngth atthe c o ur t i m po se a s en te nc e at“ th e m i ni m um o fthe a p p li cabl e g ui del i ne ra nge. ” W hi te does not ar gue that t here was a m utual m i sta ke about ( orbr each of ) thes e t er m s. 3 The m utual m i sta ke al so did not affect the e sse nti al par amet er s o fthe pl ea b ec au se b o ththe pl ea a g r ee m en t an d the di st r i ctc o ur t spe ci fi cally addr es se d the c o nt i ngencyr ega rdi ng sa fetyval ve tr eat m ent. I n the pl ea agr eeme n t, Wh i t e a g r e e d th a tth e g o v e r n me n tw o u l d r e c o m-N o. 09

- 2053 9

m en d tha t he was e l i g ibl e f o r a tw o - l ev elr edu ct i o n “ if my c r i mi na l h i s t o r y qua l i fi e s me fo r s a fe t y v a l v e t r e atm ent .
. . . ” An d du ri ng the pl ea hear i ng, the dist ri ct j ud ge as ke d W h ite if it w as co rre c t t h a t “ t h e G ov er n m en t w ill m ake a nonbi nd i ng r eco m m endati on a t sentenci ng tha t yo u , if y ou qualif

y, r e c e i v e the b e ne fi to fwh a t ’ s c a l l e d a sa fet y v a l v e . . . ?” an d W h ite an sw er ed , “Y es , sir.” Thu s, the m i sta ke w as not about an es senti alte rm o f the a g r e e men tb utr a the r ab o utthe p o s s ib l e s e nt e nc e, w hich gene rall y d oes not sup p ort the w ithd ra w a l of a gu ilt y p lea

. See U nite d State s v. B ow li n , 53 4 F

. 3d 654, 66 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “W e have re peatedl y hel d that the f act that a defendant und er es ti m ate d his se ntence w hen en te rin g h is p le a is n ota fair an d j u st rea so n to p er m it hi m to withdraw that gui l ty ple a. ”) ( i nter nal quotat i on m arks om itted ). W h ite als o a rg u es th at, bec au se h e w as n otsp ec ifica lly w ar n ed th at in elig ibilit y for sa fet y v alv e t re at m en t w ou ld rend er th e govern m en t’s other recom m en d ations ineff ec ti ve , hi s pl ea was no t “kno wi ng l y, v o l unt ar i ly, a nd i nt el l i g en tl y ” m ade. The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t th e re cor d c ontr adic ted W hi te’ s a sse rt i on that he w as unaw ar e o fthe conse quences o fhi s pl ea. W e a gr ee. A defendant m ay w i thdraw hi s ple a i f i t was notente re d in to knowingly, vo l untari l y, and i ntel l i gentl y “ w i th su ffi ci enta war en es s o fthe r el ev an t ci r cumst an ce s an d l i kel y c onse quences. ” See Brad s haw v. St um pf , 54 5 U.S

. 17 5, 18 2-8 3 (2 00 5); U nite d State s v. Wallace, 27 6 F

. 3d 36 0, 366 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)

. Vo l unt ar y r es po ns es m ade by a de fen dan t un d er oath before an ex am ining ju d ge, how ever, are10 N o. 09

- 2053 b in d in g. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ell i s on , 83 5 F

. 2d 68 7, 693 ( 7th Cir

. 19 87)

. A ccor dingl y, a gui l ty ple a a ftera Rule 11 col l oquy e nj oys “ a presum pti on o fve ri ty. ” B enne tt, 33 2 F. 3d at 1099

. H er e, the p le a ag r ee m en t spe ci fi ca l l y s ta te d tha t th e g o ve r nm en t woul d r ec o m m en d a t wo- l ev elr edu ct i o n if W hi te w as el i gibl e f or sa fetyval ve tr eat m ent, wh i ch depe nde d o n h i s cr i m i na l hi st o r y . The a g r ee m en t furthe r no t e d tha t the po s s ib l e pe na l t y tha t c o ul d b e i m posed was a m and at or y m i ni m um o f10 ye ar s i m pri sonm en t an d th at th e actu al sen ten ce w ou ld be d eterm i ned by the co urt aft er an invest i gat i on bythe proba

ti on offi ce and consi derat i on o fthe sente nci ng g uidel i nes. The j ud ge fol l owed up on the se agr eem ents at the pl ea hear i ng, wh er e W hi te speci fi cal l y a cknowle dged that (1) th e m an d atory m in im u m term w as 10 years; ( 2) if he qual i fi e d, h e c o ul d r e c e i v e s a fe t y v a l v e t r e a t men t, wh i ch was the k eyt o a vo i di ngthe mandat o r y min i m um ; a nd (3) th e j ud ge cou ld n ot d eter m ine th e ap p li cab le advisory gu ideline sen ten ce u nt ilafter the p resen t e n c e rep ort w as com ple ted. Of cour se, th e w ar ni ngs c oul d have b e e n mor e s pe c i fi c . Bu tWhi t e c i t e s n o c a s e l aw to s up porttha t, w i thout a m or e thor ough warni ng, hi s pl ea w as not “kno w i ngl y, vo l untari l y, and i ntell i gentl y” m ad e. C f. U nited St a tes v. K no rr, 94 2 F

. 2d 1217, 12 20 ( 7th Cir

. 19 91) ( “[ T]h e j ud ge i s no t r equi re d to, and often cannot, atthe ti m e the pl ea i s ten dered, i nfo rm the def en dan t o fthe e ff ec ts the a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe S en ten ci ng G uid eli ne s w il l ha ve on the sen ten ce.”). Lik e the dist ri ct cour t, w e too sym pathi ze w ith W hi te. Bu t had he been al l owed to withdraw his pl ea, a subse-N o. 09

- 2053 11 q u en t g u ilty ve rd ict by a j u r y l oo ks h er e like it w ou ld ha ve b eena f o r eg o ne c o nc l us i o n. And the n h e m i g ht have re cei ved a senten c e of even m or e than 10 yea rs . Bec au se the a g r ee m en t di d no t pr o m i se a sp eci fi c se nte nc e, and the r ec o r d s ho ws tha t W hi te kne w the possibl e co nsequences ofhi s pl ea, the dist ri ct j ud ge di d no t ab us e hi s di sc r et i o n i n den ying W hi te ’ s m o ti o n. Forthes e r eas ons, since we rej ect W hi te’ s a tte m pt to se t as i de th e pl ea a g r ee m en t, the ap p eal wai ve r s ta nds a nd we mustdi smi ss hi s appe alf o r wanto fj ur i sdi ct i o n. A PPE AL D IS MIS S ED .

3- 5- 10