NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UNI T E D S T AT E S CO UR T OF AP P E AL F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 1933

_____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

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

_____________ O n A ppeal fr om the D i s tr i ctC our tof the

V i r gi n I s l ands ( D . C . N o. 3- 99- cr - 00006- 002) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. R aym ond L . Fi nch

_______________ A r gued M ay4, 2010 B e f o re : S M IT H , C H A G A R E S a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui t Judges . ( Fi l ed: A ugus t5, 2010)

_______________ Da v i d R. F i n e [ AR GUE D] K& L Gat e s LLP 1 7 N o rth S e c o n d S t. - 1 8 F l. th H arr i s bur g, PA 17101 C ouns el f orAppel lant R onal d W . Sharpe Ne l s o n L . J o n e s [ AR GUE D] A u d re yL . T h o m a s-F ra n c is U ni t ed St at es A t t orney ’ s O ffi ce 5500 V et er an’ s D r i ve - #260 St . T hom as , V I 00802 C ouns el f orAppel l eeB ecause the brot hers s hare the sam e l astnam e, w e w i l l refert o them bytheirfi rs t 1 nam es. 2 _______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . Irv in e H o d g e , Jr. a n d h is b ro th e r, D e v in H o d g e , ro b b e d a jew e lrysto re in S t. T hom as and murde r ed the s t or e’ s ow ner . T he br other s pl ed gui l typur s uantt o i dent i cal 1 p lea a g re e m e n ts, a n d b o th re c e iv e d life se n ten c e s a t a jo in t se n ten c in g h e a rin g . D e v in appea l ed hi s l i fe s ent ence t o ourcourtand pr evai l ed on hi s ar gum entthatthe governm ent b re a c h e d its p lea a g re e m e n t b yim p licitlyre c o m m e n d in g a life se n ten c e d e sp ite its p ro m is e n o t to re c o m m e n d a n ys p e c if ic s e n te n c e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

odge , 412 F. 3d 479 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (he reina fter “ D evi n H odge ”) . A l though I r vi ne’ s l aw y erfai l ed t o fi l e an ap p ea l, Irvine su cc essf

u ll yo b tai n ed co ll ateral reli ef as a resu lto f h is co u n sel’s in e f f e c tiv e n e s s , th e re b yp e rm ittin g h im to a p p e a l h is s e n te n c e . H odge v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 4 F . 3 d 3 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (he reina fter “ I r vi ne H odge ” ) . Li k e h i s b r o th e rb e f o r e h i m, Irv in e n o w a p p e a ls, c o n ten d in g th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t b re a c h e d its p lea a g re e m e n t w ith h im byi m pl i ci t l yr ecomm endi ng a l i fe s ent ence atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng. B eca us e the governm enttr eat ed the br other s as a uni t , i ncl udi ng dur i ng i t s pr es ent at i ons atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, w e ca nnotfai r l yunt angl e w hatthe governm ents ai d aboutI r vi ne fr om w hati ts ai d abouthi s br other . T hus , w e r eac h the s ame concl us i on i n I r vi ne’ s appea l as“A s thei rname sugge s t s , packa ge dea l pl ea ba r gai ns exi s tw her e the governm ent 2 acc ept s a def

endant ’ s gui l typl ea on the condi t i on thathi s co- defe ndant ( s ) al s o pl ead gui l ty . ” D evi n H

odge , 412 F. 3d at489. I n a s uppl ement al pl ea a gr eement , I r vi ne agr eed t o cooper at e and the governm ent 3 a g re e d th a t, if

th e c o o p e ra tio n w a s a d e q u a te , it w o u ld f ile a m o tio n p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 . T he governm entneverfi l ed a 5K m ot i on, butI r vi ne does nott ake a nyi s s ue on a p p e a l w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s in a c tio n . 3 w e di d i n D evi n’ s and w i l l vaca t e I r vi ne’ s s ent ence and r emand forpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on. I . Backg r ound A
. P l ea Agree m ent

and Sent enci ng In 1 9 9 8 , Irv in e , D e v in , an d a n a c c o m p lice , Ja so n H u ll, ro b b e d th e “ E m e ra ld L ady , ” a j ew el r ys t or e on St . T hom as , and murde r ed Lar ryD avi s , the s t or e’ s ow ner . T he th re e m e n w e re c h a rg e d in a th ird su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t w ith f irst d e g re e m u rd e r, in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( j ) ( 1) ; i nt er fer i ng w i th comm er ce byr obbery , i n vi ol at i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 1 ; a n d ta m p e ri n g w ith a w itn e s s b yk illin g , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 1 2 (a ). In A p ril 2 0 0 0 , p u rsu a n t to a p a c k a g e p lea d e a l, Irv in e a n d D e v in p led g u iltyto 2 fi r s t - degr ee mur der . U nderthe br other s ’ i dent i cal pl ea a gr eement s , the governm ent re se rv e d its rig h t to sp e a k a t se n ten c in g , b u t ag re e d th a t itw o u ld “ m a k e n o sp e c if ic s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on otherthan t o r eques tthatthe s ent ence be w i thi n the gui del i ne ra n g e .” ( A pp. at16, ¶ 9. ) H ul l al s o pl ed gui l tyt o the cha r ges i n the i ndi ctm ent , al though

3 i tapp ears that hi s pl ea agreem ent w as not packag ed w i th the H od ge b rothers’ agreem ents .4

O n M ar ch 6, 2002, the thr ee c o- defe ndant s w er e s ent ence d atthe s ame pr ocee di ng in th e D istric t C o u rt o f

th e V irg in Isla n d s. A f

ter se n ten c in g H u ll, th e C o u rt tu rn e d its a tten tio n to h e a rin g f

ro m a n d a b o u t th e H o d g e b ro th e rs, b e g in n in g w ith Irv in e . D u rin g its pr es ent at i on, the governm ents t at ed thatI r vi ne “ha d everyoppor tuni tyt o be a pos i t i ve i nfluence in this com m un i ty , ” t hat he had “everything go i ng for hi m , ” bu tthat, regar dles s, he i nexpl i cabl ym ur der ed Lar r yD avi s . ( A pp. at68. ) T he pr os ecut orcont i nued, veer i ng betw een rem arks di rect ed at I rvi ne an d then atbo th b rothers: [ I]t m a k e s a b so lu telyn o se n se th a t th is d e f e n d a n t an d h is b ro th e r w o u ld jo in in w h a t h a p p e n e d a t th a t jew e lrysto re . B u t w e ’re h e re n o w . L a rryD a v is is d e a d . M s. R a w lin s[ , a s e c u rityg u a rd w h o w a s s h o t d u rin g th e in c id e n t,] i s tr aumat i zed f

orthe r es tof herl i fe. . . . B utI don’ tthi nk w e w i l l ever under s t and w hatw as i n the mi nd of thes e tw o y oung m en, D evi n and I r vi ne H odge. . . . I ’ ve come t o the r eal i zat i on, ther e i s no expl anat i on. T hey deci ded t o be l aw l es s . T heydeci ded t o do thes e evi l act s , and now they hav e t o fac e t he co nsequ ences o f t ho se act i on s. (I d. at 69 . ) T h e p ro se c u to r th e n re sp o n d e d to sta tem e n ts o f re m o rse Irv in e m a d e d u rin g h is a llo c u tio n , ag a in m ix in g c o m m e n ts th a t sp e c if ied Irv in e w ith c o m m e n ts a b o u t b o th brot hers: [ I ] ta l wa y s a ma z e s me th a to n c e a p e r s o n g e t s c o n v i c t e d a n d s p e n d s s o me t i m e i n j ai l , pendi ng s ent enci ng, tw o thi ngs happen. T heyus ual l yfi nd re lig io n , an d th e yu su a llyf in d g re a t re m o rse . . .. W h e th e r th e re m o rse is g e n u i n e o rn o t , I l e a v e th a tf o ra h i g h e rp o we rt o d e t e r mi n e . Bu ta ts o me poi ntthi s defe ndant[I r vi ne] has t o r eal i ze thatther e ar e gr ave c ons equenc es for y ou r act i on s. A nd w hat’ s even m ore am azi ng i s that i tw asn’tthe fir st tim e th e yh a d ro b b e d th e E m e ra ld L a d yJe w e lryS to re .. . . S o , n o t o n lyd id theyvi ct i m i ze [ the D avi s es ] a fi r s tt i m e byr obbi ng them, theyr eturned ther e a s econd t i m e, and thi s t i m e i tw as even mor e tr agi c. So, I as k the5

C our tt o fas hi on a s ent ence as fai rand as j us t , and thats ends a cl ear m e s s a g e : Y o u m a y g o o u tw i th th e i n t e n t i o n o f . . . c o m m i t t i n g a r o b b e ry, buti f s om eone di es w hi l e y ou’ r e comm i t t i ng thatr obbery , ther e ar e gr ave con sequen ces t o y ou r act i on s. (Id . at69- 70. ) I m m edi at el yther eaf t er , the C our thear d a vi ct i m i m pacts t at ementby G w endol yn R aw l i ns , the s ecur i tyguar d atthe Em er al d L adyw ho w as s hotdur i ng the
r obbery . A ft erexpl ai ni ng how thatvi ol entactperm anent l yal t er ed herl i fe, s he s t at ed that “I fee l t o m y s el f thatw i th t he ful l nes s of the l aw , thatthes e guy s s houl d payforw hatt hey have done . ” (I

d. at 71 . ) B efor e s ent enci ng I r vi ne, the C our tas ked foral l ocut i on r egar di ng D evi n, expl ai ni ng that“[i t ] w oul d l i ke t o . . . i m pos e s ent ence aft erhear i ng both al l ocut i ons . . . . ” (Id .) O b v io u slyc o n c e rn e d th a t th e b ro th e rs m ig h t b e lo sin g th e ir in d iv id u a l id e n tit ies in the C our t ’ s ey es , D evi n’ s couns el expr es s ed hi s “hope [ that , ] by[the C our t ’ s ] hear i ng b o th allocu ti o n s, . . . the C o u rtis no t fi x ed o n a p red ispo sit ion to se n tenc e the se b roth ers equal l y . ” (Id . ) T he C our tr es ponded: “N otnece s s ar i l y . T hat ’ s w hyI w antt o hearbot h of them. ” (Id .) D ev in’s co u n sel th en p rese n ted h is sen tenc ing p o sit ion , fo cu sing o n D ev in’s r ehabi l i t at i on s i nce the i nci dent . D evi n per s onal l yexpr es s ed hi s r emors e and r eques t ed, i n l i ghtof hi s r ehabi l i t at i on, “anotherchanc e t o be partof s oci etyagai n” bec aus e he “[c oul d] be a pr oduct i ve ci t i zen i n thi s comm uni ty . ” (I d. at83. ) T he governm ent r es ponded bys ay i ng, “[o] nce a gai n, w e’ r e fa ced w i th an ar gum entthat , w el l , he has turned hi s l i fe a r ound. ” (I d. at84. ) Fr om ther e, the pr os ecut orques t i oned how “s om eone6

that evi l , [cou l d] have com plet e t ransform at i on i n a fo ur- y ear peri od ” and w hether“i t[i s] genui ne. ” (I

d. at86. ) H e al s o as ked “doe s the comm uni tyatl ar ge have t o w onder , once his sent ence is com plet ed an d h e’s rel eased b ack int o the com m un i ty , w hetheri t ’s a genui ne cha nge ornot ?” (Id . ) T he governm entcont i nued: W e a sk th e C o u rt to f

a sh io n a se n ten c e th a t is f a ir, th a t is ju st, b u t th a t is a lso f a ir a n d ju st to L in d a D a v is [ L a rry ’s w id o w ], to L a rryD a v is, to G w e n d o lyn R a w lin s a n d th e ir f a m ili e s. B e c a u se D e v in H o d g e h a d h is chan ce t o b e a po si t i ve infl uen ce i n the com m un i ty . L arryD avis w as 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 sn ’t g e t a s e c o n d c h a n c e . H is fami l ydoes n’ tgeta s econd c hance . G w endol yn R aw l i ns ’ [s i c] l i fe ha s been c om pl et el ytr aumat i zed. She does n’ thave a s econd c hance . She has t o l i ve w i th the s car s and w i th the i nj ur i es i nfl i ct ed bythe eve nt s . O nce 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 thati s fai rand j us tt o the vi ct i m s i n thi s cas e. (I d. at86- 87. ) M s . R aw l i ns then addr es s ed the C our ta s econd t i m e, agai n expr es s i ng her “hope thathe [D evi n] bear [s ] the ful l penal tyof the l aw . ” (I d. at 88 . ) T h e re a f ter , the C o u rt a d d re ss e d b o th b ro th e rs, in d ica tin g th a t itw a n ted th e m to know w hatL i nda D avi s had w r i t t en t o the C our t . T he C our tr ead i nt o the r ecor d a l et t er fr om M s . D avi s , i n w hi ch s he s ai d that“[t ] he peopl e of St . T hom as need t o be outr aged enough t o puta s t op t o t err or i s m and ac know l edge the val ue of Larry ’ s l i fe, ” and s he par aphr as ed a f

ami l i arquot at i on, s ay i ng, “forevi l t o tr i um ph, good m en nee d do nothi ng. ” (Id . at91. ) Speaki ng di r ect l yt o the br other s , the C our tadded, “t o the ext ent thati thas anyr el evanc e t o y ou tw o y oung m en – I don’ tknow i t– butther e s eems t o be an envi r onm enti n St . T hom as , i n part i cul ar , w her e the comm uni tyi s doi ng nothi ng andD ev in also arg u ed that h is plea c o ll o q u yw as d ef ici en t bec au se th e C o u rtw as u n aw are 4 th a t h is p le a w a s lin k e d to Ir v in e ’s p le a , h o w e v e r, w e re je c te d th a t a rg u m e n t. D e v in H odge , 412 F. 3d at480. 7 al l ow i ng evi l t o t r i um ph. ” (Id . ) T h e C o u r tth e n s e n t e n c e d b o th b r o th e r s , s i m u l t a n e o u s l y, t o li fe sentences: [ H ] a v i n g t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n e v e ryth i n g th a t ’ s b e e n s a i d t o d a y, e v e ryth in g I k n o w a b o u t th e c a s e a n d th e te rm s o f th e p le a a g re e m e n t, I have no a l t ernat i ve i n m ym i nd, and i n good cons ci ence , butt o s ent ence eac h of y ou t o l i fe i n pr i s on. (I d. a t 9 2 .) B . D evi n’s Appeal D evi n t i m el yappea l ed fr om the j udgm entof s ent ence , ar gui ng thatthe governm ent br eac hed i t s pl ea a gr eementbyi m pl i ci t l yr ecomm endi ng a l i fe s ent ence , des pi t e havi ng agr eed nott o r ecomm end a s peci fi c s ent ence . D evi n H odge , 4 1 2 F . 3 d a t4 8 4 . We 4
a g re e d . F irst w e c o n c lu d e d “ th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld h a v e u n d e rsto o d th e p lain l anguage of D evi n’ s pl ea a gr eementt o m ean thatthe governm entw oul d notm ake a ny s peci fi c s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on. ” I d. at486- 87. N ext , w e hel d that , bas ed on the pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng: T he governm entbr oke i t s pr om i s e. T he pr os ecut oras ked “w hetherthe comm uni tyatl ar ge [ha d] t o w onder , once [ D evi n’ s ] s ent ence i s compl et ed and he’ s r el eas ed bac k i nt o the comm uni ty , w hether[he made] a genui ne c h a n g e o r n o t.” 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 s houl d notbe r el eas ed bac k i nt o the comm uni ty . T he pr os ecut oradded that D evi n “had hi s chanc e t o be a pos i t i ve i nfl uence i n the comm uni ty . ” The pl ai n i m pl i cat i on of thats t at ementw as thatD evi n s houl d notbe gi ven anotherchanc e t o be a pos i t i ve i nfl uence i n the comm uni ty . T he pr os ecut orO n r emand, D evi n w i thdr ew hi s pl ea butagai n pl ed gui l tyon N ovember22, 2006, 5 a f te r w h ic h h e w a s s e n te n c e d to 4 5 0 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. U ni t ed Stat es v. H

odge , 276 F . A p p ’x 1 2 0 , 1 2 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 8 s t at ed thatthe murde rvi ct i m di d notgeta s econd c hance t o be a pos i t i ve i nfl uence i n the comm uni tyand ur ged the C our tt o “fa s hi on a s ent ence that i s fai rand j us tt o t he vi ct i m s i n thi s cas e. ” The pl ai n i m pl i cat i on of that s t a t e me n twa s th a ta f

a i ra n d j u s ts e n t e n c e f

o rDe v i n wo u l d d e n yh i m a se c o n d c h a n c e . In sh o rt, “[ o ]n lya stu b b o rn lylit e ra l m in d w o u ld re f u se to re g a rd 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 re c o m m e n d a tio n ] o n se n ten c in g .” B yre c o m m e n d in g a “ life se n ten c e in a ll butname, ” the governm entbr eac hed i t s agr eementw i th D evi n. I d. a t4 8 7 ( a l t e r a t i o n s i n o r i g i n a l ) ( f o o tn o t e a n d c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) . I n s o r e a s o n i n g , we p o in ted o u t th a t M s. R a w lin s’s re q u e st th a t D e v in “ b e a r th e f u ll p e n a ltyo f

th e law ” o n ly emphasi zed the pr os ecut or ’ s eff or tt o equat e a s ent ence thati s fai rt o the vi ct i m s w i th a lif e s e n te n c e . I

d. at487 n. 9. A ccor di ngl y , w e vac at ed D evi n’ s s ent ence and r emanded “forthe D i s tr i ctC our tt o det erm i ne w hethert o gr ants peci fi c per form ance oral l ow w ith d ra w a l o f

th e g u ilty p le a .” I

d. at487. 5 C
. I r vi ne’s § 2255 P et i t i on U nl i ke D evi n, I r vi ne fa i l ed t o t i m el yappea l hi s s ent ence . I r vi ne moved for c o llate ra l re lief

p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , cla im in g th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t b re a c h e d its p lea a g re e m e n t w ith h im a n d th a t h is f a ilu re to a p p e a l th a t issu e w a s a re su lt o f h is c o u n s e l’ s in e f

f e c tiv e n e s s . I

r vi ne H odge , 554 F. 3d at374, 379. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Ir v in e ’s m o tio n a n d Ir v in e a p p e a le d th a t d e n ia l. I d. at376- 77.9

W e h e ld th a t c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ilin g to a p p e a l I rv in e ’s s e n te n c e . I d. at 381. W e not ed thatcouns el w as cl ear l yi neff ect i ve i f I r vi ne had i ns truct ed hi m t o appea l a n d c o u n s e l f

a ile d to d o s o . I

d. at380. H ow ever , w e conc l uded that , r egar dl es s of
w hetherI r vi ne had s o i ns truct ed hi s couns el , I r vi ne had s t i l l es t abl i s hed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance beca us e, “anyr at i onal defe ndanti n hi s pos i t i on w oul d w antt o appea l . ” I d. I ndeed, ci t i ng t o D evi n H odge , w e no t ed that“[t ]he pl ausi bil i tyof o ne o f [Irvine’ s] ar gum ent s forvaca turof hi s s ent ence i s demonstr at ed bythe fa ctthatD evi n, w ho r ece i ved an i dent i cal pl ea a gr eementi n a j oi ntpl ea a rr angement , and then, ata j oi nt s ent enci ng hear i ng, r ece i ved an i dent i cal s ent ence , s ucce s s ful l yar gued thatthe governm enthad br eac hed the pl ea a gr eementbyi m pl i ci t l yr eques t i ng a l i fe s ent ence . ” I d. a t 3 8 0 n .1 1 ; s ee al

s o i d. a t 3 8 1 (e x p lain in g th a t “[ Irv in e ] h a d n o n f riv o lo u s a rg u m e n ts th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d b re a c h e d its p lea a g re e m e n t w ith h im ” in lig h t o f “ th e p a ra llels betw een hi s cas e and D evi n’ s ”) . A ccor di ngl y , w e “va cat e[d] [I r vi ne’ s ] s ent ence and r emand[ed] the ca s e forthe r e- entr yof thats ent ence s o thathe [w oul d have] the oppor tuni tyt o fi l e a di r ectappea l . ” Id
. at382 ( footnot e omi t t ed) . O n r emand, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt , in a c c o rd a n c e w ith o u r i n s tru c tio n s , re im p o s e d th e s a m e lif e s e n te n c e o n Ir v in e . T h is tim e ly ap p e a l f

o llo w e d .T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt p o s s e s s e d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is c a s e p u rs u a n t to 4 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 1 2 . 6 W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I r vi ne fi l ed hi s appea l on A pr i l 1, 2009, even though t he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notent eri t s amended j udgm enton the docke t unt i l A pr i l 7, 2009. A l though I r vi ne’ s appea l w as pr ematur e, w e have j ur i s di ct i on b e c a u s e th e a p p e a l r ip e n e d u p o n th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s e n tr yo f ju d g m e n t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v . C o n so le , 13 F. 3d 641, 649 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( “[D efe ndant ] appea l ed on the dayof the sen tenc ing b u t bef

o re the jud g m en t w as e n tered . W e n ev erthe less h av e jurisdicti o n . ”); see al so F ED . R. A PP . P . 4(b)( 2) ( “A no t i ce of app eal fi l ed af

t er the co urtann ou nces a deci s i on, s ent ence , oror der– butbefor e the entryof the j udgm entoror der– i s tr eat ed as fil ed o n the d ate o f a n d af ter th e e n try . ”). 10 I I . D i s cus s i on 6 I r vi ne as s ert s thathe i s ent i t l ed t o vaca turof hi s s ent ence and r emand becaus e the governm entbr eac hed i t s pl ea a gr eementw i th hi m byi m pl i ci t l yr ecomm endi ng thathe be gi ven a l i fe s ent ence . “[W ] hetherthe governm entvi ol at ed the t erm s of a pl ea a gr eement is a q u e stio n o f

law su b jec t to p len a ryre v iew th a t m a yb e ra ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l d e sp ite the def endant ’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e the i s s ue ats ent enci ng. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Q ueens bor ough , 227 F. 3d 149, 156 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . “W e have m ade c l earthatthe governm enthas an obl i gat i on t o adher e s tr i ct l yt o the t erm s of the bar gai n i ts tr i kes w i th defe ndant s . ” I d. ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . “I n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe governm enthas vi ol at ed the t erm s of the pl ea a gr eement , w e as k ‘ w hetherthe governm ent ’ s conducti s cons i s t entw i th the part i es ’ r eas onabl e under s t andi ng of the agr eement . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. R om an , 1 2 1 F .3 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 )) . A s i n D evi n’ s cas e, i n w hi ch w e cons trued the i dent i cal pl ea a gr eement , “a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have unde r s t ood the pl ai n l anguage of [the def endant ’ s ] pl ea agr eementt o m ean thatthe governm entw oul d notm ake a nys peci fi c s ent enci ng11

r ecomm endat i on. ” D evi n H odge , 412 F. 3d at486- 87. I r vi ne ar gues thatthe governm ent b re a c h e d th a t ag re e m e n t b yim p licitlyre q u e stin g a life se n ten c e th ro u g h sta tem e n ts it
m a d e a t th e jo in t se n ten c in g h e a rin g . T h e g o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d s th a t an ysta tem e n ts it m ade at s entenci ng con cerni ng D evin di d n ot “aut om at i cal l yextend[]” t o Irvine becau se the tw o w ere ad d resse d in se p ara te pre sen tat ion s. (A p p ell ee ’s A n s. B r. at 13 . ) T hi s w oul d cert ai nl ybe a s i m pl ercas e i f the governm enthad i n fac tdeal tw i th the br other s i ndepende nt l y , buti tdi d not . I ns t ead, i ttr eat ed the H odge br other s as bei ng eff ect i vel yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e. Fr om the out s et , the pr os ecut i on appr oache d the br other s as a si ng l e cri m i nal uni t . T he g ov ernm ent s ou gh ta pack age p l ea dea l , ty i ng the b rothers’ ca ses to g ethe r, an d en tered into ide n ti ca l plea a g ree m en ts w ith b o th o f th em . M o re i m por t ant l yforourpurpos es , the pr os ecut ortr eat ed the br other s i n a vi r tual l yi dent i cal m a n n e r a t s e n te n c in g . D ur i ng the governm ent ’ s comm ent s aboutI r vi ne, the pr os ecut orfocus ed on the b ro th e rs a s a tw o s o m e , re p e a te d ly re f e rr in g to th e “ e v il” a c ts th a t “ th e y ” h a d c o m m itte d . S p e c if ica lly , the g o v e rn m e n t sta ted th a t “[ i]t m a k e s a b so lu telyn o se n se th a t th is defenda nt [Irvi ne] an d h is brother w oul d j oi n i n w hathappene d atthatj ew el rys t or e, ” “I don’ tthi nk w e w i l l everunder s t and w hatw as i n the mi nd of th e se tw o y o u n gm e n , D e v in and I r vi ne H odge , ” “ [t

] hey deci ded t o be l aw l es s , ” and “ [t ] hey d e c id e d to d o th e se e v il a c t s , a n d n o w they have t o fac e the cons equenc es of thos e ac t i ons . ” ( A pp. at68- 69 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ).) T h e g o v e rn m e n t als o n o ted th a t th e b ro th e rs’ jo in t cr im in a l ac tiv ity
w as notthe fi r s tt i m e that“they ” had r obbed the Em er al d L ady , expl ai ni ng thatthe12

char ged theftw as the s econd t i m e “they ” had r obbed the s t or e and that“thi s t i m e [the re s u lt] w a s e v e n m o re tr a g ic ” th a n th e f ir s t. (I d. a t 7 0 .) A c c o rd in g to th e p ro se c u to r, th is repeat ed law l ess cond uct necessi t at ed a sen t ence thatrefl ect ed the “grave co nsequ ences” o f th o s e a c tio n s . (Id . ) B yr epea t edl yr efe rr i ng t o the br other s j oi nt l y , the pr os ecut or s tr o n g l yi mp l i e d th a tth e two s h o u l d b e tr e a t e d i d e n t i c a l l yf o rs e n t e n c i n g p u rp o s e s . By f r e q u e n tr e p e t i t i o n o f

th e wo r d “ th e y , ” th e p r o s e c u t o rs i g n a l e d t o th e Co u r tth a tth e two b ro th e rs w e re e q u a llyc u lp a b le a n d th a t sta tem e n ts m a d e a s to o n e b ro th e r w e re e q u a lly a p p lic a b le to th e o th e r. A ft erhear i ng the governm ent ’ s pr es ent at i on as t o I r vi ne, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeci ded to h e a r a b o u t D e v in b e f o re se n ten c in g e ith e r o f th e b ro th e rs. T h e p ro se c u to r b e g a n h is comm ent s aboutD evi n bys t at i ng “once agai n, w e’ r e fa ced w i th an ar gum entthat. . . he has turned hi s l i fe a r ound, ” (I d. a t 8 4 ,) th u s ty in g th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p e rsp e c tiv e o n D e v in back t o w hati thad s ai d aboutI r vi ne. Fur therm or e, al though the governm enti dent i fi ed D ev in b yn am e, th e o v era ll g isto f it s co m m en ts ab o u t bo th b roth ers w as th at th e C o u rt s houl d s end a mes s age thatthe br other s had exha us t ed thei roppor tuni t i es t o be pos i t i ve m e m b e rs o f

th e c o m m u n ity. ( S e e id
. a t 6 9 (d e sc rib in g b o th d e f e n d a n ts’ a c ts a s “ e v il”); id . a t 8 6 (d e sc rib in g D e v in a s “ e v il”).) W h ile s p e a k in g a b o u t D e v in , the p ro se c u to r a g a in referred t o b oth of t he b rothers’ act s, usi ng the sam e l ang uag e and them es that he had j ust us ed i n hi s pr es ent at i on r egar di ng I r vi ne, namel y , thatthe br other s s houl d be gi ven a s ent ence thatr efl ect ed the s ever e harm done t o the vi ct i m s and the demand for re tr ib u tio n .W e e mp h a s i z e th a twe a r e n o ts u g g e s t i n g th a tth e g o v e rn me n tma yn o ta tth e s a me 7 tim e a d d re s s a d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith s e n te n c in g p o s itio n s a s to m u ltip le d e f e n d a n ts in a c a s e . T h e re m a yb e g o o d re a s o n s f o r t h e g o v e rn m e n t to d is c u s s s e v e ra l d e f e n d a n ts a s a g ro u p . F u rth erm o re, i f a p rose cu tor, at sen tenc ing , d ist ing u ishe s am o n g d ef en d an ts w h o are gui l tyof the s ame conduct , he ors he w i l l notbe s ai d t o have br eac hed a pl ea a gr eement w i th o ne d efen dan tbyvirtue o f st at em ents dir ect ed to ano ther defen dan t , even i f t ho se sta tem e n ts c o u ld a p p lyto th e f irst d e f e n d a n t. H o w e v e r, w h e n a p ro se c u to r tre a ts defe ndant s as i n es s ence i ndi s t i ngui s habl e, the pr obl ems aff ect i ng the s ent enci ng of one defe ndantm ayw el l aff

ectthe s ent enci ng of another , as i s the ca s e her e. Irv in e a lso a rg u e s th a t D evi n H odge m andat es the r es ul ther e bec aus e D evi n H odge 8 cons t i tut es the l aw of the ca s e as a pr i orappea l of a c o- defe ndantw ho w as s ent ence d at 13 T he governm ent ’ s tr eatm entof the br other s as a uni tevi dent l yhad i t s i nt ended effect, becau se i nst ead o f sent encing t hem separat el y , the C ou rtheard t he d efen se al l ocut i ons and governm entr ebutt al s as t o both br other s pr i ort o s ent enci ng ei ther , and th e n th e C o u rt to o k “ in to c o n sid e ra tio n e v e ry th in g th a t’s b e e n sa id ” w h e n sim u ltan e o u sly s e n te n c in g th e m b o th to lif e im p ri s o n m e n t. (I

d. at 92 . ) B eca us e the pr os ecut ortr eat ed the br other s as bei ng the s ame fors ent enci ng purpos es , w e ca nnotun- m i x t he s ent enci ng comm ent s the governm entm ade a boutthe tw o. S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . H

a ll , 515 F. 3d 186, 200- 01 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( acknow l edgi ng 7 that , w her e hus band and w i fe w er e both char ged w i th i dent i cal cr i m i nal offe ns e ar i s i ng fr om the s ame conduct , pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement s as t o w i fe ne ces s ar i l yr efe rr ed t o hus band a s w e ll). A c c o rd in g ly , w e h a v e c o n sid e re d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p re se n tatio n s a s to b o th br other s i n det erm i ni ng w hetheri tbr eac hed the pl ea a gr eementw i th I r vi ne. T hatbei ng s o, ourdeci s i on on the ques t i on of br eac h has been i nform ed bythe r es ul ti n D evi n H

odge . A gai n, the theme of t he governm ent ’ s s ent enci ng comm ent s w as

8the s ame pr ocee di ng. O u r c irc u it h a s re c o g n ize d th a t, fo r th e law o f th e c a se d o c trin e to a p p ly, th e s a m e p a rt ie s m u s t h a v e b e e n in v o lv e d in th e e a rl ie r d e c is io n . S e e I n r e W. R. G r ace & C o. , 591 F. 3d 164, 174 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( r efus i ng t o cons i derpr i oropi ni on as l aw o f th e c a se b e c a u se th a t o p in io n “ d id n o t in v o lv e th e sa m e p a rties a n d iss u e s, a s is re q u ire d f

o r a p p lica tio n o f

th e law o f

th e c a se d o c trin e ” (f

o o tn o te o m itt e d )); see al so U ni t ed Stat es v. D exter , 165 F. 3d 1120, 1124 ( 7th C i r . 1999) ( “W e ac know l edge that b e c a u se [ d e f

e n d a n t] w a s n o t a p a rtyto th e m e rits d e c isio n in th e o rig in a l ap p e a l [ b yh is co- defe ndant ] he i s notpr ecl uded fr om r ai s i ng the s ame ar gum ent s anew thatw er e r ai s ed by[hi s co- defe ndant ] . ”) . W hen tw o defe ndant s appea l s epar at el yand thei rcas es ar e not c o n s o l i d a t e d , th e y c a n n o tb o th b e s a i d t o b e p a r t i e s t o e a c h o th e r ’ s a p p e a l s . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e r ej ectI r vi ne’ s ar gum entthatthe l aw of the ca s e doctr i ne appl i es her e. 14 thatthe H odge br other s ar e evi l i ndi vi dual s w ho had exha us t ed thei roppor tuni t i es t o be p o s i t i v e i n f

l u e n c e s i n th e c o m m u n i ty. ( See A p p . at 6 8 (“ [ Irv in e ] h a d e v e ryo p p o rtu n ityto b e a p o sitiv e in f

lu e n c e in th is c o m m u n ity ” ); id
. at86 ( “D evi n H odge had hi s chanc e t o be a p o sitiv e in f

lu e n c e in th e c o m m u n ity . ”).) A s w a s th e c a se w ith D e v in , “[ t]h e p lain i m pl i cat i on . . . w as that[I r vi ne] s houl d notbe gi ven anotherchanc e t o be a pos i t i ve in f lu e n c e in th e c o m m u n ity,” in o th e r w o rd s , th a t h e s h o u ld b e in c a rc e ra te d f o r l if e . D evi n H odge , 412 F. 3d at487. T he governm entfocus ed on the br other s ’ “evi l ” ac t s and asked the C ou rtt o crafta “fair ” and “j ust ” sent ence thatrefl ect s the im pact of t ho se a c tio n s o n th e v ic tim s , w h o s e liv e s w e re e ith e r t a k e n f ro m th e m o r c h a n g e d f

o re v e r. ( See A pp. at69 ( “Theydeci ded t o do thes e evi l act s , and now theyhave t o fac e the co n seq u en ce s o f th o se a cti o n s. ”); id
. at70 ( as ki ng, aft ernot i ng the “tr agi c” r es ul tof the brot hers cr i m es, that the C ou rt“fashion a sentence as fai r and as j ust ” and w hich sends a
m es s age thatther e ar e “gr ave c ons equenc es t o y ouract i ons ” i f s om eone di es w hi l e y ou c o m m it a ro b b e ry ); i d. a t 8 7 (a sk in g th e C o u rt, af ter n o tin g th a t L a rryD a v is “ d o e sn ’t g e t aW e ar e foc us ed her e s ol el yon w hatthe pr os ecut orw as perm i t t ed bythe pl ea 9 agr eementt o s ay . W e expr es s no opi ni on r egar di ng the pr opr i etyof the s ent ence that I r vi ne ac tual l yr ece i ved. I n r emedy i ng a br eac h of the pl ea a gr eement , w e i m pl ynothi ng aboutw hatI r vi ne’ s s ent ence oughtt o be. T he D i s tr i ctC our ti s of cour s e fr ee on r emand t o cons i derthatthe cul pabi l i tyand henc e the s ent ence t o be borne byeac h br otherm aybe d if f e re n t. 15 se c o n d c h a n c e ” a n d th a t G w e n d o lyn R a w lin s’s “ life h a s b e e n c o m p lete lytra u m a tize d ” to “fa s hi on a s ent ence thati s fai rand j us tt o the vi ct i m s i n thi s cas e. ”) . ) T he t ot al i tyof the comm ent s i m pl i ci t l yr eques t ed a l i fe s ent ence forboth br other s , i n vi ol at i on of the pl ea a g re e m e n t. See D evi n H odge , 4 1 2 F .3 d a t 4 8 7 (c o n c lu d in g th a t “‘ [ o ]n lya stu b b o rn ly 9 l i t er al m i nd w oul d r efus e t o r egar d the G overnm ent ’ s comm ent aryas comm uni cat i ng a [s peci fi c r ecomm endat i on] on s ent enci ng’ ” ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C r us co , 536 F. 2d 2 1 , 2 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 6 ) (a ltera tio n in o rig in a l)); s e e a ls o id
. ( “B yr ecomm endi ng a l i fe s ent ence i n al l butname, the governm entbr eac hed i t s agr eementw i th D evi n. ” ( quot at i ons a n d in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d )) . I I I . C oncl usi on B eca us e, ats ent enci ng, the governm entcons i s t ent l ys poke of I r vi ne and D evi n as i ndi s t i ngui s habl e, w e ca nnotacc epti t s cont ent i on thatthe br other s s houl d be tr eat ed di ffe r ent l yon t he ques t i on of w hetherthe governm entbr eac hed thei ri dent i cal pl ea agr eement s . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e I r vi ne’ s s ent ence and r emand forthe D i s tr i ct C o u rt to d e ter m in e w h e th e r to g ra n t sp e c if ic p e rf o rm a n c e o r a llo w w ith d ra w a l o f h is g u ilty p le a .