2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
2-8-2008 

# U SA v . H all
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2373

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . H all " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1501. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1501P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 2373

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . NEA L HA LL, A ppel l ant
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( E
. D
. Pa. C r i m . N o. 06- cr - 00160- 2) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond
Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber14, 2007 B E FO R E : R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G , and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed February8, 2008)

Pet erG ol dber ger P a m e la A . W ilk 50 R i t t enhous e Pl ace A r dm or e, PA 19003- 2276 A t t orney s forappel l ant2 Patr i ck L. M eeha n U ni t ed St at es A t t orney R obertA
. Z auzmer A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney C h ief o f A p p e a ls K ar en L. G r i gs by A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney 615 C hes tnutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t orney s forappel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.

I
. I NT RO DUC T I ON T hi s m att ercomes on be for e thi s courton an appe al fr om a j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence ent er ed on M ar ch 21, 2007, on a pl ea of

gui l tyi n the D i s tr i ctC our t
. T he G overnm ent i ni t i at ed the ca s e on A pr i l 5, 2006, w hen i tfi l ed an i nform at i on agai ns tappel l antN eal H al l ( “H al l ”) and hi s w i fe, B l onde G r ay s on- H al l ( “G r ay s on- H al l ”) , char gi ng them each w i th thr ee count s of w i l l ful fai l ur e t o fi l e i ncome t ax r eturns i n vi ol at i on of 26 U
. S. C
. § 7203. O n M ay16, 2006, H al l and hi s w i fe, pur s uant t o pl ea a gr eement s , ent er ed pl eas of gui l tyt o eac h of the thr ee count s of the i nform at i on. O n M ar ch 21, 2007, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt se n ten c e d e a c h d e f e n d a n t to a 1 2 -m o n th c u sto d ial te rm to b e f o llo w e d b y1 2 -m o n th te rm s o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . M o re o v e r, t h e c o u rt im p o s e d a $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 f in e o n e a c h d e f

e n d a n t. H al l now chal l enges the pr ocedur e the D i s tr i ctC our tfol l ow ed w hen he e nt er ed hi s pl ea a nd al s o chal l enges the s ent ence the courti m pos ed. I n part i cul ar , H al l cont ends thatw hen he e nt er ed hi s pl ea of

gui l tythe courtfai l ed t o exer ci s e the “s peci al car e” r equi r ed dur i ng col l oqui es i n cas es i nvol vi ng t i ed pl ea agr eement s ( us ual l ycal l ed “pa ckage deal agr eement s ”) , the G o v e rn m e n t b re a c h e d its p ro m ise in th e p lea a g re e m e n t to3 “[ m ]ak e n o rec o m m en d ati o n as to the s en tenc e,” an d the c o u rt im p o s e d a n u n re a s o n a b ly lo n g c u s to d ia l s e n te n c e o n h im

. G ra y s o n -H a ll h a s n o t a p p e a le d

.

I I
. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY H a l l , a n o p h th a l m o l o g i s t , a n d G r a ys o n - H a l l , a n a t t o rn e y, ar e r es i dent s of Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a. D ur i ng the t i m es g e rm a n e to th e se p ro c e e d in g s H a ll o p e ra ted O p h th a lm ic A s s oci at es , I nc. d/b/ a Fl our t ow n E y e A s s oci at es and M i l an D es i gnerE y ew eari n Fl our t ow n, Penns y l vani a, and W i l m i ngt on E y e A s s oci at es i n D el aw ar e, and G r ay s on- H al l pr act i ced l aw thro u g h H all & A sso ciates, L L C , a law firm in P h il ad elph ia. In 1986, H al l i ncorpor at ed O phthal m i c R es ear ch A s s oci at es (“O R A ”), a n o n -pro fito rga n izati o n in W est C h ester, Penns y l vani a, w i th H al l as i t s chai rper s on and G r ay s on- H al l as its s e c re ta ry a n d tr e a s u re r. T h e G o v e rn m e n t’s in f

o rm a tio n c h a rg e d th a t d e f e n d a n ts w i l l ful l yfai l ed t o fi l e i ncome t ax r eturns for1999, 2000, and 2 0 0 1 . A f

ter n e g o tiatio n s th ro u g h se p a ra te a tto rn e y s, d e f e n d a n ts ent er ed i nt o t i ed pl ea a gr eement s w i th the G overnm ent , eac h agr eementbei ng condi t i oned on the entryof a gui l typl ea bythe otherdefe ndant

. A m ong othert erm s the G overnm ent ’ s pl ea agr eementw i th H al l i ncl uded the fol l ow i ng pr ovi s i on: 7
. A t th e tim e o f

se n ten c in g , the g o v e rn m e n t w ill :
a. M ake no r ecomm endat i on as t o the s ent ence . b. C om m enton t he evi dence and ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e; br i ng t o t he C our t ’ s att ent i on al l fac t s r el evantt o s ent enci ng in c lu d in g e v id e n c e re latin g to d ism iss e d c o u n ts, if a n y , an d to th e c h a ra c ter a n d a n yc rim in a l co n d u c t o f th e d e f e n d a n t; addr es s the C our tr egar di ng the natur e and s er i ous nes s of the o f f e n se ; re sp o n d f

a c tu a llyto q u e stio n s ra ise d b yth e C o u rt; corr ectfac tual i nacc ur aci es i n the pr es ent ence r eportor s ent enci ng r ecor d; and r ebutanys t at ementof fa ct s m ade by4 oron behal f of the def

endantats ent enci ng.
c . N o th in g in th is a g re e m e n t sh a ll l im it th e g o v e rn m e n t in its com m ents i n, and res po nses t o, anypo st -s entenci ng m at t ers . A pp. at5- 6. G r ay s on- H al l ’ s pl ea a gr eement , how ever , di d not p ro h ib it th e G o v e rn m e n t f ro m m a k in g a re c o m m e n d a tio n a s to hers ent ence . A s w i l l be s een thi s di s t i nct i on i s atthe cor e of o n e o f th e iss u e s H a ll rais e s o n th is a p p e a l. O n M ay16, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our tconduct ed a j oi nt pl ea he ar i ng fordefe ndant s , w ho w er e pr es entand r epr es ent ed bys epar at e att orney s thr oughoutthe hea r i ng, pur s uantt o Feder al R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 1 1
. T h at rule req u ir es th at be fo re acc ept i ng a pl ea of

gui l tythe courtm us t“det erm i ne thatthe pl ea i s vol unt aryand di d notr es ul tfr om for ce, thr eat s orpr om i s es ( othe rtha n p r omi s e s i n a pl e a a gr e e ment )

. ” Fe d. R. Cr i m. P. 11( b) ( 2)

. D ur i ng the hea r i ng, the courtengage d i n a col l oquy w i th H al l t o det erm i ne w hetherhi s pl ea w as vol unt arythat i ncluded the fo l l ow i ng exch ang es: T H E C O U R T : . . . D o y ou al s o under s t and that I w i l l as k y ou ques t i ons t o s at i s fym y s el f that y ou ar e compet entand abl e t o ent era pl ea, and t o s at i s fym y s el f thaty ou ar e know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l ygi vi ng up y ourr i ght s i n ent er i ng thi s pl ea? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T H E C O U R T : I f a t anyti m e y o u d o n ’t under s t and w hatI ’ m s ay i ng, y ou w antt o r epea t a n yth i n g , p l e a s e l e tm e k n o w , o k a y? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T H E C O U R T : A n d if

a t an ytim e y o u w a n t to s p e a k t o y o u rl a wy e r , M r . M i l l e r , y o u l e tme k n o w , w e ’ll tak e a c o n tin u a n c e , an d w e ’ll re c e ss th is m a tter f

o r a s lo n g a s y o u n e e d to5 sp e a k w ith y o u r c o u n se l, all rig h t? T H E D E FE N D A N T : Y es , thank y ou.

* * * T H E C O U R T : Y o u h a v e a n a t t o rn e y? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T H E C O U R T : M r. M il ler? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T H E C O U R T : A n d h a v e y o u h a d a m p le o p p o rtu n ityto d iscu ss y o u r ca se w ith M r. M il ler? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T H E C O U R T : A n d are y o u sati sfied w ith M r. M i l l er ’ s r epr es ent at i on of y ou? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es.

* * * T H E C O U R T : . . . H a s a n y o n e m a d e a n yth re a ts orpr om i s es oras s ur ance s t o y ou of anyki nd, otherthan w hati s s etfor th i n the pl ea agr eementt o convi nce ori nduce y ou t o pl ead gui l tyi n t hi s cas e? T H E D E FE N D A N T : N o.

* * * T H E C O U R T : N ow , y ou hav e heard m e dis cuss w ith y o u r w if

e th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c o n d iti o n o f th is cas e, thati tw oul d notnegot i at e [a ] pl ea a gr eementA ppar ent l ythe part i es d i s t i ngui s hed betw een de partur es 1 an d v arian ce s b yrea so n o f o u r op inion in U n it ed S tat es v . V am p ir e N ati o n , 4 5 1 F
. 3 d 1 8 9 , 1 9 5 n . 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). 6 w i th onl yone of y ou, thatei therboth of y ou pl ed g u i l tyo ry o u b o th we n tt o tr i a l

. Yo u h e a r d me d i s c u s s th a twi th h e r ? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T H E C O U R T : A n d y o u h a v e d isc u ss e d th a t w ith y o u r c o u n se l? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. T H E C O U R T : A n d a re y o u v o lu n tar ilya n d f re e ly el ect i ng t o pl ead gui l ty , beca us e y ou thi nk, aft er con sul t i ng w i th y ou r l aw y er, i ti s i n y ou r best i nt er es tt o do s o? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es. A pp. at70, 72, 80- 81. Fol l ow i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s col l oqui es w i th defe ndant s i tacc ept ed thei rpl eas of gui l tyt o the thr ee cou nts of w i l l ful fai l ure t o fil e i nco m e t ax returns. O n M ar ch 21, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tconduct ed a sen tenc ing h ea ri n g fo r bo th H all an d h is w ife. A fter the co u rt deni ed ea ch def

endant ’ s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e fr om the ap pli cable base offen se l evel, i tcon cl ud ed thatbo th h ad b ase offe ns e l evel s of 12 w hi ch, w hen combi ned w i th thei rcr i m i nal hi s t orycat egor i es of I , y i el ded a s ent enci ng r ange of 10 t o 16 m on ths. T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen cons i der ed def endant s ’ m ot i ons fo r va ri an ce s p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 5 3
. G ray so n -H all ’s 1 att orneybegan the ar gum ent s on the mot i ons bycont endi ng that a var i ance w oul d be appr opr i at e bec aus e def endant s had pai d, or w er e expe ct ed t o pay , the amount s thattheyow ed i n t axes , and7 theyw oul d noti n t he futur e fa i l t o fi l e t ax r eturns beca us e they had i m pl ement ed a pa yr ol l s ervi ce i n thei rr es pect i ve bus i nes s es thatw oul d w i thhol d t axes . G r ay s on- H al l ’ s att orneyal s o r efe rr ed t o defe ndant s ’ l i fes ty l es , s t at i ng that“the H al l s do notl i ve a l avi s h l i fe s ty l e, ” and that“[t ] heyar e byno m eas ur e w eal thy

. ” S u p p . ap p . at 7 5 . A f

ter G ra y so n -H a ll’s a tto rn e yf in ish e d h is re m a rk s , G ra y s o n -H a ll m a d e a p e rs o n a l a llo c u tio n . Fol l ow i ng G r ay s on- H al l ’ s al l ocut i on, H al l ’ s att orney m a d e h is a rg u m e n ts in s u p p o rt o f H a ll’ s m o tio n f

o r a v a ri a n c e . H e b eg an b yref

erring to h is earli er a rgu m en ts r ef ere n cing H all ’s char i t abl e w or k and G r ay s on- H al l ’ s poorheal th. H al l ’ s att orney then ar gued thata var i ance w oul d be appr opr i at e bec aus e “the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e” w arr ant ed one. Supp. a p p . a t7 7
. A c c o r d i n g t o H a l l ’ s a t t o rn e y: T h is is n o t a c a se a n d I th in k th is is im p o rta n t, b ec au se w h at I’m ab o u t t o sayrea ll ytake s D r. H a ll an d f

o r th e [ sic ] m a tter, ta k e s M rs. H a ll o u tsid e th e h e a rtlan d o f o f f e n d e rs w h o re a lly se e k to c h e a t th e G o v e rn m e n t o u t o f tax e s. T h is i s not a case abou tgreed. T his i s not a case a b o u t w ill f

u l ev a sio n . T h e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t an yo f

th e m o n e yth a t sh o u ld h av e g o n e to p aytaxe s w as sp en t on lux u ry i t ems. W as s penton vaca t i ons orcl othi ng or car s oranythi ng l i ke that

. T hat ’ s s i m pl ynotthe case w i th b oth defen dan t s. Q uit e t o the con trary , theyl i ve a v erym od est lif e s tyle . T h e yh a v e o ld c a rs , o ld c lo th e s , a hom e i n need of

r epai r . T hey ’ ve t aken one vaca t i on i n t he l as tt en y ear s . T hi s i s s i m pl ynot a c a s e a b o u t g re e d . A n d f o r t h a t m a tte r, I bel i eve theyfal l out s i de, cert ai nl yD r . H al l and M r s . H al l , forthatm att er , fal l out s i de the heart l and of of

fende r s w ho ar e s eeki ng t o chea t the G o v ern m en t ou t of

taxe s, y o u r H o n o r.8 Id . H a ll’s a tto rn e ya lso a rg u e d th a t a v a ria n c e w a s a p p ro p ria te b a se d o n H a ll’s p a ym e n ts o f th e tax e s th a t h e o w e d a n d h is a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility f

o r h is c ri m e s . A ft erH al l ’ s att orneycompl et ed hi s ar gum ent , H al l gave h is a llo c u tio n f

o llo w in g w h ich th e G o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d e d to both defe ndant s ’ ar gum ent s . W i thouts peci fy i ng atthe out s etthe defe ndantt o w hom i tw as r efe rr i ng, the G overnm entm ade the f o llo w in g sta tem e n t: [Sect i on] 3553( a) compel s thatw e fi r s tl ook at th e n a tu re a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e o f f e n s e . A n d m ak e n o m ist ak e h ere , the o ff en se is fa il u re t o fi l e r eturns . T hi s i s nota ca s e bef or e y our H o n o r o f p e o p le w h o a re b e in g c h a rg e d w ith fai l ur e t o payal l theyow ed, havi ng fi l ed a r eturn. Peopl e w ho coul dn’ tbeca us e of j uggl i ng fi nanci al r es pons i bi l i t i es , come good on A pr i l 15th. T hi s i s a ca s e w her e fort en y e a rs, n o tax re tu rn s w e re f iled . T h is isn ’t a c a s e o f m i s c a l c u l a t i o n . We f

i l e d a r e tu rn . We i nnocent l ythoughtthattr avel and ent ert ai nm ent a n d c a re x p e n s e s we r e d e d u c t i b l e a n d s o we deduct ed i ti n good fai th. B uti tturns out , no, th a t’ s w ro n g , s o w e d id n ’t p a yth e m . T hi s i s a ca s e w her e, fort en y ear s , no t ax r eturns w er e fi l ed. N o t axes w er e pai d. A nd n o t ju s t f e d e ra lly. N o c ity w a g e , n o s ta te ta x . T h e o n lytax th a t h a s b e e n p a id h e re is p ro p e rty t ax, beca us e otherw i s e, the bank c om es and ta k e s y o u r p ro p e rt y . A deci s i on nott o fi l e a r eturn i s a dec i s i on that y o u m ak e e v erysing le da yfo r t en y ea rs. E v ery A pr i l 15th, w hen al l y ourfr i ends and col l eague s ar e t al ki ng abouthavi ng t o fi l e, i t ’ s a dec i s i on that y ou kn ow y ou are m aking. S o, I think, fi rs t of al l , i t ’ s i m por t antt o l ook atthe off ens e and w h a t th e o f

f e n se is. A n d th e o f

f e n se is f a irly9 s t ark. S u p p . a p p . a t 8 2 -8 3
. A t th is p o in t, th e G o v e rn m e n t d istin g u ish e d b e tw e e n H a ll a n d h is w if

e b ysta tin g : “a d d re ss in g B lo n d e f irst a n d a g a in , I w ill ju st s a yf o r th e re c o rd th a t m yc o m m e n ts c o n c e rn in g N e a l H a ll w i l l be veryl i m i t ed, beca us e I do notw antt o run afoul of [U ni t ed St at es v. N ol an- C ooper , 155 F. 3d 221 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ]
. ” S up p. app . at83
. T he G ov ernm ent pr oceed ed to di scuss G r ay s on- H al l ’ s as s et s . D ur i ng thatdi s cus s i on, i ts t at ed: I bel i eve, s he and N eal , betw een them have ei ther[s i c] orni ne ac count s thathave be en char ged off

and 11 thatar e i n col l ect i on s t atus o r vice v ersa . It ’s a h u g e n u m b er o f c red it o rs w ho have be en s t i ffe d, j us tl i ke the G ov ernm ent. Iti s a choice on thei r par t
. Iti s a cho i ce t o o w n p ropertyand no tpayt axes. Iti s a ch o ice to h av e h u n d red s o f th o u san d s o f d o ll ars of incom e and no tpayt axes. S u p p . ap p . at 8 4 -8 5 . T h e G o v e rn m e n t th e n p re f a c e d its s ubs equentar gum ent s w i th the w or ds “as t o B l onde H al l , ” s upp. app. at85, and des cr i bed G r ay s on- H al l ’ s educa t i onal and p ro f e ss io n a l b a c k g ro u n d . T h e G o v e rn m e n t ch a llen g e d h e r c laim that sh e d id n o t kn o w sh e o w ed taxe s, arg u ing that “if sh e d idn ’t bel i eve s he ow ned [s i c] m oney. . . [s he coul d have] fi l e[d] the tax re tu rn s s h o w in g n o liab ili ty ,” a n d th a t “[ s]h e d id n ’t d o th a t, b e c a u s e s h e k n e w s h e d i d o we [ t a x e s ] a n d s h e k n e w t h a tth e I RS w o u ld re je c t h e r r e tu rn a s b o g u s .” S u p p . a p p . a t 8 6
. A ft erar gui ng thatG r ay s on- H al l ’ s s t at ement s conce rni ng herl ack of

know l edge w er e notcr edi bl e, the G overnm ent a d d re ss e d d e f

e n d a n ts’ a rg u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g th e ir c h a ritab le w or ks

. T he G overnm ents peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed O R A , ar gui ng: O R A w a s th is c h a rityth a t N e a l an d B lo n d e H a ll s t art ed. A nd I thi nk, s i gni fi cant l y , i n t erm s of under s t andi ng thatchar i ty , i ts houl d be10 u n d e rsto o d th a t N e a l ac q u ire d a b u ild in g in h is n a m e in W e s t C h e s te r, i n h is p e rs o n a l n a m e . T h e H a lls, B lo n d e in p a rticu lar , w e ll, th e H a lls then s ol i ci t ed donat i ons forthe r enovat i on of th e b u ild in g f

o r th e w o rk o f

O R A . B u t th e yd id n o t d isc lo se to th e f

o u n d a tio n s a n d p riv a te c o n trib u to rs, th a t th is b u ild in g w a s o w n e d in h is n a m e . S o , in e ss e n c e , the ya re g e tti n g c h a ritab le contr i but i ons t o i m pr ove a f aci l i tythathe – a bui l di ng thathe ow ns i n hi s ow n name. Supp. app. at88. T he G overnm entar gued that“w hatthi s m oney d id , the yb a sic a llyso licite d c h a ritab le m o n e yto im p ro v e th e ir o w n sta tio n . T o im p ro v e th e ir o w n p lac e in life , to im p ro v e th e ir ow n fi nanci al s t andi ng. ” Supp. app. at89. T he G overnm ent then add ed, “I think t hat al so speak s t o w ho B l on de H al l i s as a per s on, one of the fa ct or s under3553( a)

. ” Supp. app. at89. T he G overnm entconcl uded i t s r es pons e w i th the f o llo w in g sta tem e n t: F i nall y , I w ant t o justverybri efl yadd res s 3553( a) [w hi ch] r equi r es thatthe s ent ence that y ou i m pos e pr om ot e r es pectforthe l aw and provide adeq uate det err ence. I think t hat’ s j ust in c re d ib ly im p o rt a n t in a w h ite -c o lla r c ri m e . Peopl e payatt ent i on t o cr i m e [s i c] l i kes [s i c] th is. I’v e g o tten a p h o n e c a ll fro m a d o c to r in th e c o m m u n ity w h o re a d a b o u t th is in th e p a p e r. A nd w ant s t o know w hatthei rs ent ence i s w hen th e ya re s e n te n c e d

. Y ou know , i tcal l s t o m i nd the s t at ementof, w as itL eo n a H elm sly , taxe s are fo r l ittl e p eo p le. In otherw or ds , w hen y ou have the bus dr i verj ob, the fi r eman j ob, the t axes ar e w i thhel d. B ut w hen y ou’ r e a doc t orora l aw y er , do y ou have t o payt axes ? A nd i s ther e a pe nal tyi f y ou do n’t
. Is there a pen al tybey on d just , w el l , y es, now y ourbui l di ng’ s appr eci at ed al l thi s m uch11 and the I R S i s goi ng t o t ake thei rpenal ty , but m ayb e y o u r real estate h as a p p rec iat ed m o re than the IR S pen al tyi s going t o sock y ou for, so y ou s t i l l come outahea d. O rm aybe, y ou get a wa ywi th i te n t i r e l y , i n th i s c a s e , b e c a u s e we ar e pas tthe St atut e of Li m i t at i ons fors om e of the y ear s . T her e w i l l be no pena l tyfors om e of the y ear s forw hi ch no r eturns w er e fi l ed and no t axes pai d. S o , I th ink that in term s o f th e p u b li c’s per cept i on of w hetherornotthi s i s a s i gni fi cant cr i m e, i t ’ s nece s s aryt o have a s ent ence of i m pr i s onm ent
. A nd M r . N as t as i [G r ay s onH al l ’ s couns el ] i s r i ght , I am aski ng forthe t op o f th e g u idelines as to B lon d e H all

. It ’s nece s s aryt o have a s i gni fi cants ent ence of i m pr i s onm entt o s how peopl e that , y es , y ou re a lly d o h a v e to f

ile y o u r r e tu rn s a n d p a yta x e s . It re a llyis a sig n if

ica n t cr im e . It m a yb e w h ite col l ar . M aybe nobodyget s hur t
. M aybe, y ou know , ther e’ s no gun, no thr eatof vi ol ence . B ut i thas a si gn i fi cant i m pact. A nd i ti s a s i gni fi cantcr i m e. S up p. app . at89 -90. T he G ov ernm ent added that “for tho se r eas ons , . . . as t o B l onde H al l , I do as k fora s ent ence atthe t op of the gui del i nes . A nd as t o N eal H al l , cons i s t entw i th the governm ent ’ s pl ea a gr eement , i tm akes no r ecomm endat i on. ” Supp. app. at90. F o ll o w ing the G o v ern m en t’ s arg u m en t, the D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d G r ay s on- H al l t o 12 m onths i m pr i s onm entand an addi t i onal 12 m onths of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and i m pos ed a f i ne o f $ 2 0 , 0 0 0
. T h e D istri ct C o u rtthen sen tenc ed H all

. T h e c o u rt obs erved thathe i s “a hi ghl yeduca t ed, hi ghl yi nt el l i gentm an [ w h o h a s] a c k n o w led g e d th a t [ h e ] k n e w [ h e w a s] o b lig a ted to fi l e t ax r eturns ” but“r epea t edl yfai l ed t o do s o. ” Supp. app. at 100. A m ong the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s cons i der at i ons w as “the nee d forthe s ent ence i m pos ed t o r efl ectthe s er i ous nes s of the12 offe ns es t o w hi ch [H al l ] pl ed gui l tyt o pr om ot e r es pectforthe law ,” “ [ t]o p ro v id e ju st p u n ish m e n t,” “ [ t]o a f f o rd a d e q u a te det err ence t o cr i m i nal conductand t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om any fur thercr i m es . ” Supp. app. at100- 01. A l though the courtnot ed th a t it“ [ d id ] n o t b e liev e [ H a ll] w ill c o m m it an yo th e r c rim e s,” it sta ted th a t it“ b e liev e [ d ] th a t [ H a ll] b ro u g h t th e law in to di s r es pectw hen a l i cens ed doct ors i m pl yfai l s t o fi l e t ax r eturns fory earaft ery earaft ery ear . ” Supp. app. at101. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t it“ b e liev e [ d ] a se n ten c e o f in c a rc e ra tio n is a [s i c] es s ent i al t o pr om ot e r es pectforthe l aw and t o pr ovi de an adequa t e det err ence i n thes e ci r cumst ance s . ” I d. T he courtthen i m pos ed a s ent ence of 12 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed by12 mo n th s o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , a n d a f i n e o f $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 , th e s a me sen tenc e tha t i t i m p o sed o n G ray so n -H all

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt e n te re d ju d g m e n t a g a in s t H a ll o n th e s a m e d a te , M a rc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 7
. H al l then t i m el yappea l ed.

I I I
. J UR I SDI CTI ON AN D STA ND AR DS O F REVI EW T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on over thi s m att erpur s uantt o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). H a ll c h a llen g e s b o th th e e n tryo f h is p lea a n d th e im p o sitio n o f h is s ent ence . W i th r es pectt o the entryof hi s pl ea w e eva l uat e the pl ea c ol l oquyforpl ai n err orbeca us e he di d notobj ecti n the D i s tr i ctC our t
. See U ni t ed St at es v. V onn, 535 U
. S. 55, 62- 63, 122 S. C t
. 1043, 1048 ( 2002)

. O urr evi ew of the ques t i on of w h e th e r 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 a ll i s pl enaryeven though he di d notobj ectatthe t i m e of the al l eged br eac h. See U ni t ed St at es v. H odge, 412 F. 3d 479, 484- 85 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. W e r evi ew H al l ’ s s ent ence on an abus e of di s cr et i on bas i s . See G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t
. 586, 594 (20 0 7 ).

I V. DI S CU S S I ON13 W e begi n bynot i ng thateven though H al l ’ s pl ea a g re e m e n t in c lu d e d a c o n d iti o n a l w a iv e r o f h is rig h t to a p p e a l, the G overnm enthas notm oved t o aff i r m s um m ar i l ythe appe al oreven t o l i m i ti t s s cope. W e furtherobs erve thatw e “r et ai n[] s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on over[an] appea l bya def endantw ho h a [ s] s ig n e d a n a p p e llate w a iv e r.” U n ited S tate s v . G w in n e tt, 483 F. 3d 200, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2007)

. A ccor di ngl y , i nas m uch as the Go v e r n me n ta d d r e s s e s Ha l l ’ s a r g u me n t s o n th e me r i t s , a n d we h av e jurisdicti o n , w e w il l do the s am e n o tw ith stan d ing H all ’s w a iv e r o f

th e ri g h t to a p p e a l. A
. D i d t he D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s e “s peci al car e” i n det erm i ni ng w hetherH al l ’ s pl ea, w hi ch w as t i ed t o Gr a y s o n - Hal l ’ s p l e a , was v o l u n t a ry ? H al l ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o exer ci s e the “s peci al car e” r equi r ed i n det erm i ni ng w hetherhi s pl ea w hi ch he ent er ed as partof a t i ed pl ea a gr eementw i th the G overnm ent w as vol unt ary . See H odge, 412 F. 3d at488. B uthe does not co n tend that h e m ad e this o b jecti o n d u ri n g the D istri ct C o u rt ’s c o l l o q u ya tth e p l e a h e a r i n g . T h u s , a s we i n d i c a t e d a b o v e , we r evi ew H al l ’ s s peci al car e cont ent i on bear i ng i n m i nd that“a defe ndantw ho fai l s t o obj ectt o R ul e 11 err orm us tcarrythe bur den of s how i ng on appea l thatthe err orw as ‘ pl ai n, pr ej udi ci al , and di s r eput abl e t o the j udi ci al s y s t em. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng V onn, 535 U
. S. at65, 122 S. C t
. at1050)

. I n a pl ai n err or cont ext , “a de fenda ntm us ts how that : ( 1) an err orw as com m i t t ed; ( 2) the err or w as pl ai n, that i s, cl ear and o bv i ou s; and ( 3) the err oraff

ect ed the def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” I d. (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). “W h en tho se e lem en ts are sati sfied , an ap p ell ate c o u rtin it s d iscreti o n m ayo rde r a corr ect i on i f the err ors er i ous l yaff ect s the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. “[A ] defe ndantw ho s eeks r ever s al of hi s convi ct i on aft era gui l typl ea, on the gr ound thatthe di s tr i ct c o u r tc o mm i t t e d p l a i n e rr o ru n d e rRu l e 1 1 , mu s ts h o w a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforthe err or , he w oul d nothave ent er ed the pl ea. ” U ni t ed St at es v. D om i nguez Beni t ez, 542 U
. S
. 7 4 , 8 3 , 1 2 4 S
. C t. 2 3 3 3 , 2 3 4 0 (20 0 4 ).14 W e have expl ai ned thatther e i s a “pa ckage deal pl ea b a rg a in [ ] [ w h e n ] th e g o v e rn m e n t ac c e p ts a d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilty pl ea on the condi t i on thathi s co- defe ndant ( s ) al s o pl ead gui l ty . ” H o d g e , 4 1 2 F .3 d a t 4 8 9 . A s w e in d ica ted in H o d g e , “[ t]h e re is no ques t i on thatpacka ge dea l pl ea ba r gai ns ar e cons t i tut i onal , ” a “nea r l yaxi om at i c [c oncl us i on] gi ven the natur e of ourcr i m i nal j us t i ce s y s t em, of w hi ch pl ea ba r gai ns ar e an e s s ent i al part
. ” I d. at490 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. Y etw e al s o have ob served that t i ed p l ea agreem ents “po se speci al ri sks, part i cul ar l yw hen a tr i al courti s unaw ar e thatdefe ndant s ’ pl eas ar e t i ed t ogether

. ” I d. A ccor di ngl y , t o addr es s the r i s ks as s oci at ed w i th t i ed pl ea a gr eement s , w e r equi r e that“( 1) packa ge pl ea de al s be di s cl os ed t o the courtand ( 2) col l oqui es w i th packa ge pl ea pa r t i ci pant s be conduc t ed w i th s peci al car e. ” I d. at489- 90. W e have di s cus s ed the gene r al t erm s of w hatcons t i tut es “s peci al car e” i n t he cont extof a pl ea c ol l oquyi nvol vi ng t i ed p lea a g re e m e n ts: A tthe thr es hol d, a di s tr i ctcourtnot i fi ed of a packa ge dea l pl ea ba r gai n s houl d ques t i on c o u n s e l c l o s e l yt o e n s u r e th a tth e p r e c i s e t e r ms o f th e p a c k a g e p le a d e a l a re o n th e re c o rd

. O nce i ti s cl earexac t l yhow a def endant ’ s pl ea b e n e f its h is c o n f

e d e ra te( s), it m a yb e h e lp f u l to as k w ho fi r s tpr opos ed the pac kage de al , how e x ten siv e lyd e f

e n se c o u n se l w a s in v o lv e d in devel opi ng the dea l , and w hatbenef i tthe defe ndantexpec t s t o gai n fr om the dea l

. W hen as ki ng w hethera pl ea i s a pr oductof for ce, thr eat s , ori nducement s and the l i ke, a di s tr i ct courts houl d t ake c ar e nott o as k onl yw hether the pr os ecut orfor ced, thr eat ened, orcoer ced the defe ndant , butw hetherany one di d s o. H avi ng so in q u ire d , the c o u rt sh o u ld b e p a rticu lar ly attuned t o even mi l d expr es s i ons of r el uct ance b y a d e f e n d a n t
. S u c h e x p r e s s i o n s a l w a ys s houl d t r i ggera more s ear chi ng i nqui ry . O n the otherhand, as none of the def endant s m aybe15 part i cul ar l yeage rt o pl ead gui l ty , one defe ndant ’ s expr es s i ons of r el uct ance s houl d be compar ed t o t hos e of otherdefe ndant s i nvol ved in th e p a c k a g e d e a l. Id. at 49 1 -92 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). W e m ad e c lear, h o w e v e r, th a t th is s e t o f q u e stio n s “ is n o t a c h e c k list th a t, i f fol l ow ed, aut om at i cal l yw i l l pr eventa R ul e 11 col l oquyfr om goi ng aw r y , ” buti ns t ead “ i s a s um m aryof l es s ons dr aw n fr om c o llo q u ie s e v a lu a te d b yo th e r C o u rt s o f A p p e a ls .” Id . a t 4 9 2
. “The over ar chi ng rul e i s thata di s tr i ctcourtcons i der i ng a packa ge pl ea de al s houl d be part i cul ar l yatt ent i ve t o a d e f e n d a n t’s re sp o n se s to v o lu n tar in e ss q u e stio n s th ro u g h o u t a plea col l oq uy . ” Id. “T hat bei ng sai d, dis tri ctcou rt s of co urse s houl d r emem berthatpacka ge dea l pl ea ba r gai ns ar e not i nher ent l ycoer ci ve, and thatthe j udge’ s goal i s nott o doom the deal buts i m pl yt o ens ur e thatthe def endant ’ s pl ea i s vol unt ary . ” I d. T he r ecor d s how s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw as aw ar e that H a ll en ter e d h is p lea a s p a rt o f a tied p lea a g re e m e n t, an d th a t it adequa t el yexer ci s ed the “s peci al car e” r equi r ed i n det erm i ni ng thathi s pl ea w as vol unt ary . H al l i s a w el l

- educa t ed i ndi vi dual w ho gr aduat ed fr om a l eadi ng uni ver s i tyand ther eaf t erobt ai ned hi s m edi cal degr ee f

r om a medi cal s chool atanotherl eadi ng uni ver s i ty . M or eover , hi s att orneydur i ng the pl ea ne got i at i ons a n d a t th e p lea h e a rin g w a s s e p a ra te f ro m a n d in d e p e n d e n t o f h is w i fe’ s att orney . D ur i ng hi s col l oquy , the courtas ked w hether a n y o n e h a d m a d e th re a ts a g a in st H a ll o r p ro m ise s to h im to i nduce hi s pl ea, t o w hi ch he r epl i ed “N o. ” A pp. at80. I tthen a sk e d H a ll w h e th e r “ [ y o u a re ] v o lu n tar ilya n d f re e lye lec tin g to pl ead gui l ty , beca us e y ou thi nk, aft ercons ul t i ng w i th y our law y e r, itis in y o u r b e st in ter e st to d o so ,” to w h ich H a ll re sp o n d e d “ Y e s.” A p p . at 8 0 -8 1 . T h e c o u rt c o n f irm e d th a t H a ll had had the opportuni tyt o cons ul tw i th hi s att orney , w ho re p re se n ted o n lyh im a n d n o t G ra y so n -H a ll. In d e e d , H a ll d e m o n stra ted h is a w a re n e ss o f h is o p p o rtu n ityto c o n su lt w ith hi s att orneyw hen, dur i ng the G overnm ent ’ s pr es ent at i on of the f a c tu a l b a sis f

o r h is p lea , h e a sk e d th e c o u rt f o r p e rm iss io n to t al k w i th hi s att orneypr i vat el y , w ho s ubs equent l ycl ar i fi ed aIn f ac t, w e n o te th at w h en ask ed b y th e D istri ct C o u rt 2 w h ether hi s r es pons es i n hi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum w ere in c o n sis ten t w ith h is a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili ty a n d h is d e sire to p lea d g u ilty , H a ll file d a sta tem e n t w ith th e c o u rt c o n f irm in g h is w i l l i ngnes s t o pl ead gui l ty . A ddi t i onal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed that“[e ] ach D efe ndant ’ s demeanor and the m anner i n w hi ch he or she answ ered m y qu est i on s con fi rm ed m y beli ef that M r. and M rs . H al l di d notw i s h t o l os e t h e b en ef it s of thei rpl ea a gr eementand s o w er e mostw i l l i ng t o pl ead gui l ty . ” A pp. at36- 37. 16 f a c tu a l p o in t th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t p re v io u slyh a d m a d e . T h e re is n o in d ica tio n in th e re c o rd th a t H a ll ex p re ss e d “ e v e n m ild e x p re s s io n s o f

re lu c ta n c e ” a t a n yp o in t d u ri n g th e p le a h e a ri n g . H o d g e , 4 1 2 F .3 d a t 4 9 2
. H al l ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s ques t i ons conce rni ng h is p lea d e v iate d f

ro m th o se th a t w e h a v e re c o m m e n d e d th a t a courtor di nar i l ys houl d us e i n cons i der i ng gui l typl eas w hen ther e ar e t i ed pl ea a gr eement s . H e fa i l s , how ever , t o gi ve any re a so n f o r u s to su sp e c t th a t h e d id n o t m a k e h is p lea k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n tar ily

. A lth o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t as k H a ll all 2 o f th e q u esti o n s tha t w e su g g ested as e x am p les i n H o d g e f o r a c o u r tt o u s e wh e n c o n s i d e r i n g a p a c k a g e p l e a a g r e e me n t , we have not ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s admoni t i on that“[t ] he natur e of the inquiryrequi red byR ule 11 m ustnecessari l yvaryfrom case t o cas e, ” M cC arthyv. U ni t ed St at es , 394 U
. S. 459, 467 n. 20, 89 S. C t
. 1166, 1171 n. 20 ( 1969) , and that“R ul e 11 s houl d notbe gi ven s uch a c r abbed i nt erpr et at i on thatcer emonyw as exal t ed overs ubs t ance , ” V onn, 535 U
. S. at70, 122 S. C t
. at1052 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ); s e e H o d g e , 4 1 2 F .3 d a t 4 9 1
. W e have emphasi zed thatthe s etof ques t i ons thatw e s ugges t ed in H o d g e “ is n o t a c h e c k lis t,” b u t r a th e r “ a s u m m a ry o f le s s o n s ,” an d that “[ t] h e o v era rch ing rule is th at a d istri ct co u rt cons i der i ng a pac kage pl ea de al s houl d be part i cul ar l yatt ent i ve t o a def endant ’ s r es pons es t o vol unt ar i nes s ques t i ons thr oughout a p le a c o llo q u y .” H o d g e , 4 1 2 F .3 d a t 4 9 2
. H al l does notexpl ai n, atl eas tnotconvi nci ngl y , how ans w er s t o ques t i ons thatw e s ugges t ed i n H odge thatthe D i s tr i ctC l ear l yw e ca nnotknow i f H al l at a tr i al w oul d have ha d a 3 viabl e def

ense i n this case. Y et i n vi ew of hi s professi on al st atus, s ubs t ant i al i ncome, and the or di nar i l y u n compl i cat ed natur e of a w i l l ful fai l ur e t o fi l e an i ncome t ax r eturn cas e w e ca nnothel p but bel i eve thathe w as i n a di ff icultpos i t i on and s t ood t o benef i tby n e g o t i a t i n g a p l e a a g r e e m e n ta n d a c c e p t i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i ty . We m ake thi s obs ervat i on even though w e ar e aw ar e thata def endant d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rilylo se a 2 -le v e l ac c e p ta n c e o f re sp o n sib ili ty adjustm ent m erel y becau se he pl eads no tgu i l ty . R at her, w e do so beca us e ourexper i ence t eac hes us thata def endantw ho pl eads g u iltyis m o re lik e lyto re c e iv e a n a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili ty a d ju stm e n t th a n a d e f

e n d a n t co n v icte d a t trial.

17 C o u rt d id n o t as k in th is c a se w o u ld h a v e b e e n p a rticu lar ly hel pful i n a det erm i nat i on of w hetherhe ent er ed hi s pl ea know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y . I n fac t , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe ans w er s t o t he unas ked s ugges t ed H odge ques t i ons w er e not n e c e s s a ry in lig h t o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s b e f

o re th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. F o r e x a m p le, a lth o u g h th e c o u rt d id n o t as k H a ll h o w h e sto o d to benef i tfr om pl eadi ng gui l ty , the G overnm entans w er ed that ques t i on byi nform i ng the courtthat“as of thi s agr eement , the defe ndanthas demonstr at ed ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , m aki ng hi m el i gi bl e fora tw o- l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m ent
. ” A pp. at79. 3 I n s hor t , H al l has noti dent i fi ed evi dence s how i ng thatther e i s “a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t, bu t f o r th e [ c laim e d ] e rro r, h e w o u ld nothave e nt er ed the pl ea. ” D om i nguez Beni t ez, 542 U
. S. at83, 124 S. C t
. at2340. I n r eac hi ng ourconcl us i on on the vol unt ar i nes s ques t i on w e a re stru c k b yth e f

a c t th a t ev e n th o u g h H a ll o n th is a p p e a l is bei ng r epr es ent ed byexper i ence d couns el w ho di d notr epr es ent h im in th e D istric t C o u rt h e d o e s n o t f lat o u t cla im th a t h is g u ilty pl ea w as notvol unt ary . W hi l e w e r ecogni ze thathe does not have t o do s o i nas m uch as D om i nguez Beni t ez s peaks of a reas on able pr ob abil i ty , rather than a cert ai nty , of invo l un t ari ness, still i t m ig h t b e e x p e c ted th a t h e w o u ld m a k e th a t cla im u n e q u iv o c a lly . In ste a d , h e in d ica tes th a t “th e re is g o o d re a so n to bel i eve [ hi s gui l typl ea] w as not[vol unt ary ] , ” appe l l ant ’ s br

. at 21, thi s cas e had the “pot ent i al fori nvol unt ar i nes s , ” i d. , andT he pr es ent ence r eport des cr i bed defe ndant s ’ m arr i age a s 4 in ta c t. 18 ther e w as “a s ubs t ant i al pr obabi l i tythat[hi s ] pl ea w as in v o lu n ta ri ly en te re d ,” id . a t 2 7
. In factthe closesthe co m es t o sug gest i ng that there i s a b a sis f o r b e liev in g th a t h is p lea m ig h t h a v e b e e n in v o lu n tar yis hi s poi ntthatw hi l e hi s w i fe, w ho i s an att orney , “bene fi t t ed subst anti al l yfrom the li m i t at i on s of he r pl ea, i ti s not nearl yso cl earthat[he] fac ed anys i gni fi cantcr i m i nal expos ur e bey ond th a t to w h ich h e p lea d e d g u ilty ” a n d th a t “[ s]itu a tio n s lik e th is a r e r i f e wi th th e p o t e n t i a l f

o ri n v o l u n t a r i n e s s . ” I d

. a t2 0

- 2 1
. To thi s poi ntH al l adds thati f ques t i oned cl os erhe “mi ghtw el l have r evea l ed thathe w as pl eadi ng gui l tys ol el ybeca us e of the ‘ t i ed’ natur e of hi s w i fe’ s deal w i th the governm ent , al though he h im s e lf h a d littl e if

a n yth in g to g a in .” Id . a t 2 6
. W e , h o w e v e r, re

jec t as a m a tter o f

law a c o n c lu sio n th a t a defe ndantw ho pl eads gui l tyw i th hi s orherj oi nt l ychar ged defe ndant , w hetherornothi s orhers pous e, m er el ybyent er i ng thatpl ea no mat t erhow m uch i tbenef i t s the otherdefe ndantand how l i t t l e i tbenef

i t s the def

endantchal l engi ng the pl ea ha s act ed in v o lu n tar ily . M o re o v e r, in th is c a se th e re is a sp e c ial re a so n to re jec t th e th e o ryth a t a tie d p lea a g re e m e n t is in v o lu n tar ym e re ly becau se the d efen dan t s r ecei ve u neq ual benefit s fr om i tbecau se H al l ’ s co- defe ndant , w ho benef i t t ed fr om hi s gui l typl ea, j us tas he mayhave be nefi t t ed fr om hergui l typl ea, i s as di ffe r entas c a n b e f r o m th e typ e o f

c o - d e f e n d a n t s i n ma n yo f

th e c a s e s we s ee a nd har dl yw oul d have be en l i kel yt o have thr eat ened or coer ced H al l i nt o ent er i ng a pl ea of gui l ty . W e do not u n d erstan d h o w a c o u rtco u ld reg ard a g u il typ lea a s inv o lun tary m er el ybeca us e the def

endantpl eadi ng gui l tyas s i s t ed hi s orher s pous e more than he a s s i s t ed hi m s el f orher s el f fori ti s natur al thata def

endantw oul d w antt o as s i s thi s orhers pous e. I n any 4 ev en t a co n clus ion that ti ed p leas w ith u n b alan ce d b en ef it s are s us pecti nevi t abl yw oul d doom t i ed pl ea a gr eement s as that a p p ro a c h f

re q u e n tlyw o u ld o p e n u p su c h a g re e m e n ts to i nvol unt ar i nes s chal l enges on the bas i s of an a ft er - the- fac t19 anal y s i s of the compar at i ve bene fi t s t o the def endant s of the t i ed plea agreem ents
. O n the re co rd, th en , w e c o n clud e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt exer ci s ed the “s peci al car e” r equi r ed i n i t s col l oquyconce rni ng the vol unt ar i nes s of H al l ’ s pl ea, and ac cor di ngl yw e fi nd no err ori n i t s acc ept ance of hi s pl ea. B
. D i d t he G overnm entbr eac h i t s pl ea a gr eement w i th H al l r equi r i ng thati t“[m]a ke no r ecomm endat i on as t o the s ent ence , ” byar gui ng th a t H a ll’s f

a ilu re to f

ile ta x re tu rn s, to w h ich b o th H a l l a n d h i s c o - d e f

e n d a n tp l e a d e d g u i l ty, w a rra n ted a se n ten c e o f im p riso n m e n t? H al l cont ends thatthe G overnm entbr eac hed i t s pl ea agr eementw i th hi m bym aki ng pr ohi bi t ed s t at ement s dur i ng the s ent enci ng hear i ng. T he pl ea a gr eementpr ovi ded thatthe G overnm entw oul d “[m]a ke no r ecomm endat i on as t o the s ent ence , ” butw as al l ow ed t o “[c ] om m enton the evi dence and c irc u m sta n c e s o f

th e c a se ,” “ b rin g to th e C o u rt’s a tten tio n a ll fac t s r el evantt o s ent enci ng i ncl udi ng evi dence r el at i ng t o . . . the char act erand anycr i m i nal conductof the def endant , ” and “addr es s the C our tr egar di ng the natur e and s er i ous nes s of the offe ns e . . . . ” A pp. at5- 6. H al l ar gues thatthe G overnm ent breached the ag reem ent byargui ng that the co urtshou l d im po se a s ent ence of i m pr i s onm enton hi m . T he G overnm entr es ponds th a t it s c o m m e n ts th a t H a ll ch a llen g e s p e rta in e d to G ra y so n -H a ll ra th e r t h a n to h im

. In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e G o v e rn m e n t h a s b re a c h e d its p lea a g ree m en t w ith a d ef en d an t, w e a p p lythe d e n o v o stan d ard of r evi ew . U ni t ed St at es v. R i ver a, 357 F. 3d 290, 293- 94 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T o th e e x ten t, ho w e v e r, th a t p a rties d isp u te th e f a c ts of a c as e, w e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctfor cl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v. M os cahl ai di s , 868 F. 2d 1357, 1360 ( 3d C i r . 1989)

. I n t hi s cas e, w e do notpr edi cat e our det erm i nat i on on the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctand thus o u rr e v i e w i s p l e n a r y.20 T h e ru les f

o r e n f o rc in g p lea a g re e m e n ts a re w e ll es t abl i s hed. “[W ] hen a pl ea r es t s i n anys i gni fi cantdegr ee on a p ro m ise o r a g re e m e n t o f th e p ro se c u to r, so th a t itc a n b e sa id to be p artof the i nd ucem ent orcon si derat i on , such p rom i se m ust be ful fi l l ed. ” Sant obel l o v. N ew Y ork, 404 U
. S. 257, 262, 92 S .C t. 49 5 , 4 9 9 (1 9 7 1 ). “B e c a u se th e d e f e n d a n t, by en ter in g in to the p l ea, surr end ers a nu m ber of [h i s] con st i tuti on al ri gh t s, ‘ court s ar e compel l ed t o s crut i ni ze c l os el ythe pr om i s e made by the governm enti n or dert o det erm i ne w hetheri thas been per form ed. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. N ol an- C ooper , 155 F. 3d 221, 236 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. H ay es , 946 F. 2d 230, 2 3 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ))

. I n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe G overnm enthas br eac hed a pl ea a gr eement , a court“mustdet erm i ne ‘ w hetherthe g o v e rn m e n t’s c o n d u c t is in c o n sis ten t w ith w h a t w a s re a so n a b ly under s t ood bythe def

endantw hen ent er i ng the pl ea of gui l ty . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. B adar acc o, 954 F. 2d 928, 939 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 2 )). “ A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill n o t p e rm it th e g o v e rn m e n t to r el yupon a ‘ r i gi dl yl i t er al ’ appr oach t o the cons truct i on of the t erm s of the pl ea a gr eement
. ” I d. ( quot i ng M os cahl ai di s , 868 F .2 d a t 1 3 6 1 ). Al th o u g h “ [ t ] h e g o v e rn me n tn e e d n o te n d o r s e th e t e r ms of i t s pl ea a gr eement s enthus i as t i cal l y , ” B adar acc o, 954 F. 2d at 94 1 (i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed), i tno nethel ess “m ust a d h e re stric tlyto th e ter m s o f th e b a rg a in it strik e s w ith defe ndant s . ” M os cahl ai di s , 868 F. 2d at1361 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed). “[T ]he doc tri ne thatthe g ov ernm ent m ust adher e t o i t s bar gai n i n the pl ea a gr eementi s s o fundament al that even though t he governm ent ’ s br eac h i s i nadvert entand the br eac h pr obabl ydi d noti nfl uence the j udge i n the s ent ence i m pos ed, due pr oces s and equi tyr equi r e thatthe s ent ence be vaca t ed. ” N ol an- C ooper , 155 F. 3d at236 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s o m itt e d ). If

w e f in d th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t h a s b re a c h e d its p lea a g re e m e n t, w e “ re m a n d th e c a se to th e d istric t co u rt f o r it to det erm i ne w hethert o gr ants peci fi c per form ance oral l ow w i thdr aw al of the pl ea. ” M os cahl ai di s , 868 F. 2d at1363. H e re , as w e h a v e in d ica ted , the G o v e rn m e n t p ro m ise d to21 “[m]a ke no r ecomm endat i on as t o the s ent ence , ” r atherthan t ake no pos i t i on r egar di ng H al l ’ s s ent ence . A pp. at5. W e have poi nt ed outthat“[t ] he di ffe r ence betw een [ m aki ng a r ecomm endat i on and t aki ng a pos i t i on] i s el ement ary , forthe pr om i s e nott o r ecomm end i s narr ow , s peaki ng onl yas t o the s ent ence t o be i m pos ed, w her eas a pr om i s e t o t ake no pos i t i on sp ea k s to n o att em p t atall to inf luen ce the d ef

en d an t’ s sen tenc e.” U n it ed S tat es v . M il ler, 5 6 5 F
. 2 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 7 5 (3d C ir

. 1977)

. N everthel es s , though the di s t i nct i on betw een maki ng a “ re c o m m e n d a tio n ” a n d tak in g a “ p o sitio n ” m a yb e e lem e n tar yin i t s art i cul at i on, i tm aybe di ffi cul tt o det erm i ne i n a part i cul ar cas e w hetherthe G overnm entatthe s ent enci ng m ade a r ecomm endat i on ort ook a pos i t i on. T he G overnm entacknow l edges thati f i thad cont ended th a t th e c o u rt sh o u ld im p o se a se n ten c e o f im p riso n m e n t o n H a ll i tw oul d have br eac hed i t s pl ea a gr eement
. B utthe G overnm ent argues t hat i tdir ect ed it s st at em ent that the co urtshou l d im po se a s ent ence of i m pr i s onm ents ol el yt o G r ay s on- H al l

. O f cour s e, i f w e conc l ude thatthe G overnm entdi r ect ed i t s r ecomm endat i on of a s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entatH al l , i tw oul d notm att er w h e th e r it d id so “ in a d v e rte n t[ ly ],” o r w h e th e r th e sta tem e n ts “i nfl uence [d] the j udge i n the s ent ence i m pos ed .

. . . ” N ol anC o o p e r, 1 5 5 F .3 d a t 2 3 6
. A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, aft erbr i efl ydi s cus s i ng the ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e, as i tw as perm i t t ed t o do underthe plea agreem ent, the G ov ernm ent not ed thatal m ostal l of the res t of i t s comm ent s w oul d pert ai n t o G r ay s on- H al l

. T he G overnm ent ’ s comm ent s s tr ongl ys ugges tthati tw as aw ar e that it co u ld m a k e n o se n ten c in g re c o m m e n d a tio n a s to H a ll: “ I w ill ju st s a yf o r th e re c o rd th a t m yc o m m e n ts c o n c e rn in g N e a l H a ll w i l l be veryl i m i t ed, beca us e I do notw antt o run afoul of N o lan [ -]C o o p e r.” S u p p . ap p . at 8 3 . A f term a k in g th is stat em en t, the G o v ern m en t pro ce ed ed to ad d ress G ray so n -H all ’s r ol e i n t he cr i m es and herci r cumst ance s r el evantt o § 3553. I d. at83- 89. T ow ar ds the end of

i t s comm ent s atthe hea r i ng, the G overnm entar gued:22 F i nall y , I w ant t o justverybri efl yadd res s 3553( a) [w hi ch] r equi r es thatthe s ent ence that y ou i m pos e pr om ot e r es pectforthe l aw and provide adeq uate det err ence. I think t hat’ s j ust in c re d ib ly im p o rt a n t in a w h ite -c o lla r c ri m e . Peopl e payatt ent i on t o cr i m e [s i c] l i kes [s i c] this

.

* * * I s ther e a pe nal ty[fornotpay i ng t axes ] bey ond j us t , w el l , y es , now y ourbui l di ng’ s appr eci at ed a ll th is m u c h a n d th e IR S is g o in g to tak e th e ir penal ty , butm aybe y ourr eal es t at e has appr eci at ed more than the I R S penal tyi s goi ng t o s o c k y o u f

o r , s o y o u s t i l l c o me o u ta h e a d

. Or m a yb e , y o u g e t aw a yw ith it en tirely , in th is cas e, beca us e w e ar e pas tthe St atut e of L i m i t at i ons fors om e of the y ear s . T her e w i l l be no penal tyfors om e of the y ear s forw hi ch no r eturns w er e fi l ed and no t axes pai d.

* * * S o , I th ink that in term s o f th e p u b li c’s per cept i on of w hetherornotthi s i s a s i gni fi cant cr i m e, i t ’ s nece s s aryt o have a s ent ence of im p ri s o n m e n t. I d. at89- 90. A ft erm aki ng thes e s t at ement s , the G overnm ent forthe fi r s tt i m e i n t he hea r i ng m ade a n expl i ci tr ecomm endat i on as to sen tenc ing : “S o , I th ink that in term s o f th e p u b li c’s p erc ep ti o n o f w h ethe r or n o t th is i s a sig n ifi ca n t cri m e, i t’ s nece s s aryt o have a s ent ence of i m pr i s onm ent
. ” I d. at90. T he G overnm entfol l ow ed thats t at ementbynot i ng thati tw as as ki ng f o r a se n ten c e o f

im p riso n m e n t at th e “ to p o f th e g u id e lin e s a s to B l onde H al l

. ” I d. T he G overnm entthen adde d:23 I t ’ s nece s s aryt o have a s i gni fi cants ent ence of i m pr i s onm entt o s how peopl e that , y es , y ou re a lly d o h a v e to f

ile y o u r r e tu rn s a n d p a yta x e s . It re a llyis a sig n if

ica n t cr im e . It m a yb e w h ite col l ar . M aybe nobodyget s hur t
. M aybe, y ou know , ther e’ s no gun, no thr eatof vi ol ence . B ut i thas a si gn i fi cant i m pact. A nd i ti s a s i gni fi cantcr i m e.

Id . In c o n c lu d in g its re m a rk s, th e G o v e rn m e n t sta ted th a t, “a s to B lo n d e H a ll, I d o a s k f

o r a s e n te n c e a t th e to p o f th e g u id e lin e s . A nd as t o N eal H al l , cons i s t entw i th the G overnm ent ’ s pl ea agr eement , i tm akes no r ecomm endat i on. ” I d. T he G overnm entther efor e des cr i bed the fa i l ur e t o fi l e t ax r eturns as a “s i gni fi cantcr i m e” a ft eri ts t at ed that“i n t erm s of the publ i c’ s per cept i on of w hetherornotthi s i s a s i gni fi cant c ri m e , it’ s n e c e s s a ry to h a v e a s e n te n c e o f im p ri s o n m e n t.” Id

. In ar gu i ng that the co urt ’s sent ence m ust“refl ectthe seri ou sness o f th e o ff

en se,” “ p rom o te resp ec t fo r th e law , ” a n d “a ff o rd adequa t e det err ence , ” 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) ( 2) ( A )

- ( B ) , the G overnm entar gued thata s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entw as n e c e s s a r yb e c a u s e o f

th e s i g n i f

i c a n c e o f th e c r i me . T h o u g h we ar e s at i s fi ed thati n m aki ng thi s ar gum entthe G overnm entm ade s t at ement s conce r ni ng “the natur e and s er i ous nes s of the offe ns e” thati tas w el l as any one el s e r eas onabl ycoul d have re g a rd e d a s b e in g w ith in th e b o u n d s o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t, H a ll s ugges t s thatthe s t at ement s m i ghtbe vi ew ed as cons t i tut i ng a “r ecomm endat i on as t o the s ent ence ” thatthe agr eement pr ecl uded. B ut , as w e have i ndi cat ed, the G overnm entar gues that gi ven how the D i s tr i ctC our tent ert ai ned def endant s ’ r es pect i ve ar gum ent s , the G overnm entdi r ect ed i t s s t at ement s conce rni ng the s er i ous nes s of thei rcr i m es and the nee d fora s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entonl yatG r ay s on- H al l

. T her e ar e obvi ous di ffi cul t i es w i th t hi s cont ent i on beca us e def endant s comm i t t ed the s ame offens es i n t he s ame w ayand, i n everys ens e of the24 t erm , w er e j oi ntdefe ndant s . I ndeed, as H al l poi nt s out , the cr i m e w as “the s ame . . . forboth defe ndant s . ” A ppel l ant ’ s br

. at 17. T hus , w hen the G overnm entaddr es s ed the del i ber at e and se rio u s n a tu re o f

th e c rim e o f

f a ili n g to f

ile a tax re tu rn , it inev it ab lyw as a d d ressing the c o n d u ct of b o th d ef en d an ts. In th is re g a rd w e n o te th a t af ter b o th d e f

e n d a n ts h a d m a d e th e ir a llo c u tio n s th e G o v e rn m e n t sta ted th a t: [Sect i on] 3553( a) compel s thatw e fi r s tl ook at th e n a tu re a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e o f f e n s e . A n d m ak e n o m ist ak e h ere , the o ff en se is fa il u re t o fi l e r eturns . T hi s i s nota ca s e bef or e y our H o n o r o f p e o p le w h o a re b e in g c h a rg e d w ith fai l ur e t o payal l theyow ed, havi ng fi l ed a r eturn. Peopl e w ho coul dn’ tbeca us e of j uggl i ng fi nanci al r es pons i bi l i t i es , come good on A pr i l 15th. T hi s i s a ca s e w her e fort en y e a rs, n o tax re tu rn s w e re f iled . T h is isn ’t a c a s e o f m i s c a l c u l a t i o n . We f

i l e d a r e tu rn . We i nnocent l ythoughtthattr avel and ent ert ai nm ent a n d c a re x p e n s e s we r e d e d u c t i b l e a n d s o we deduct ed i ti n good fai th. B uti tturns out , no, th a t ’ s wr o n g , s o we d i d n ’ tp a yth e m. T hi s i s a ca s e w her e, fort en y ear s , no t ax r eturns w er e fi l ed. N o t axes w er e pai d. A nd n o t ju s t f e d e ra lly. N o c ity w a g e , n o s ta te ta x . T h e o n lytax th a t h a s b e e n p a id h e re is p ro p e rty t ax, beca us e otherw i s e, the bank c om es and t a k e s yo u rp r o p e r ty. A deci s i on nott o fi l e a r eturn i s a dec i s i on that y o u m ak e e v erysing le da yfo r t en y ea rs. E v ery A pr i l 15th, w hen al l y ourfr i ends and col l eague s ar e t al ki ng abouthavi ng t o fi l e, i t ’ s a dec i s i on that y ou kn ow y ou are m aking. S o, I think, fi rs t of al l , i t ’ s i m por t antt o l ook atthe off ens e and w h a t th e o f

f e n se is. A n d th e o f

f e n se is f a irly s t ark.25 Supp. app. at82- 83. A ft erthe for egoi ng comm ent s , how ever , as not ed above , the G overnm entdi d di s t i ngui s h betw een d e f e n d a n ts, sta tin g th a t itw o u ld a d d re ss G ra y so n -H a ll’s ro le in the c ri m e f

ir st an d that it s co m m en ts w ith reg ard to H all w ere l i m i t ed byN ol an- C ooper . I d. at83. T he G overnm entthen d isc u ss e d G ra y so n -H a ll’s in c o m e a n d a ss e ts, a f ter w h ich it s t at ed: I bel i eve, s he and N eal , betw een them have ei ther[s i c] orni ne ac count s thathave be en char ged off

and 11 thatar e i n col l ect i on s t atus o r vice v ersa . It ’s a h u g e n u m b er o f c red it o rs w ho have be en s t i ffe d, j us tl i ke the G ov ernm ent. Iti s a choice on thei r par t
. Iti s a cho i ce t o o w n p ropertyand no tpayt axes. Iti s a ch o ice to h av e h u n d red s o f th o u san d s o f d o ll ars of incom e and no tpayt axes. Id . a t 8 4 -8 5
. T he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e ens ur ed thatthough m uch of the G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entconce rni ng the natur e of the c rim e s d id n o t re f

e r e x p re ss lyto e ith e r H a ll o r G ra y so n -H a ll, in e f f e c t th e G o v e rn m e n t in e v itab lyre f e rre d to b o th d e f

e n d a n ts i nas m uch as theycomm i t t ed the s ame cr i m e i n pr eci s el ythe s ame w ay . T hus , w hen the G overnm entar gued that“i n t erm s of the publ i c’ s per cept i on of w hetherornotthi s i s a s i gni fi cant cr i m e, i t ’ s nece s s aryt o have a s ent ence of i m pr i s onm ent , ” i d. at 9 0 , d e sp ite th e G o v e rn m e n t’s e a rlier a d m o n ish m e n ts th a t it s comm ent s pert ai ned t o G r ay s on- H al l , i tm ayhave be en s o m e w h a t d if

f ic u lt to d is tin g u is h b e tw e e n d e f e n d a n ts
. Fur therm or e, even the mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e, for exampl e def

endant s ’ l i fes ty l es , l ar gel yw er e the s ame. T he fa ct i s thatthe G overnm enti n i t s comm ent s coul d notdr aw the l i ne b e tw e e n d e f

e n d a n ts w ith su rg ica l p re c isio n th o u g h it d id tryto m a k e c lea r to th e D istric t C o u rt th a t it s c o m m e n ts w e re in r efe r ence t o G r ay s on- H al l onl y . I ti s under s t andabl e thati thad th is d if f icu ltyf o r e v e n H a ll’s a tto rn e yc o u ld n o t, or a t lea st d id not , dr aw a fi ne l i ne betw een de fenda nt s w hen addr es s i ng the c o u rt a t se n ten c in g , fo r h e p o in ted o u t th a t h is a rg u m e n ts inIn the u nu sual si tuati on here i n w hich defen dan t s w ere s o 5 s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed butthe G overnm entcoul d m ake a s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on onl y as t o G r ay s on- H al l , i t m i ght have be en bett er for the D i s tr i ct C our t t o hear H al l ’ s ar gum ent s fi r s t an d sent ence h im b ef o re h ea ri n g h er a rgu m en ts an d then sen tenc ing h er. O bv i ou sl y , ho w ever, w e cou l d no t fi nd that i t err ed i n no tdo i ng so i nas m uch as H al l di d notr eques tthatthe courtfol low that p roc ed u re, an d w e c o u ld n o t reg ard it s fa il u re to d o as a p lai n erro r. I nd ee d , if the courterr ed i n pr ocee di ng as i tdi d ats ent enci ng, i nasm uch as i t foll ow ed H al l ’s requesti n sentenci ng his w i fe fir st it s erro r w o u ld h a v e b e e n an alm o st un rev iew ab le i n v it ed erro r. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . C o n so le, 1 3 F
. 3 d 6 4 1 , 6 6 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ). 26 f a v o ro f l e n i e n c ya p p l i e d t o b o th o f th e m. I ti s , how ever , hi ghl ys i gni fi cantthatH al l ’ s att orney p ro p o s e d a n d c o n s e n te d to h a v in g G ra y s o n -H a ll s e n te n c e d f ir s t. A l though t he G overnm entacknow l edges thati tdi d not di s t i ngui s h betw een de fenda nt s dur i ng m uch of i t s s ect i on 35 53 (a) argum ent, i targues that i tw as unn ecessaryt o d o so gi ven the manneri n w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tconduct ed the hear i ng and H al l ’ s cons entt o the arr angement
. T he G overnm ent cont ends that“the di s tr i ctcourtconduct ed ea ch phas e of the [ se n ten c in g ] h e a rin g jo in tly , b u t alw a y s a d d re ss e d M rs. H a ll first , ” a n d that “[ n ]o o n e o b jected to this fo rm at. ” A p p ell ee ’s br. at 25 -26
. T h e G o v ern m en t no tes th at prior to se n tenc ing , H all ’s att o rne yw rote a let ter t o the D istri ct C o u rtinf o rm ing itthat “M r. N as t as i [att orneyforG r ay s on- H al l ] and I have c onferr ed and res pectful l yrequestthat the C ou rtproceed fi rs tw i th M rs . G r ay s on- H al l ’ s s ent enci ng, fol l ow ed byM r . H al l ’ s s ent enci ng. ” S u p p . ap p . at 1 . T h u s, th e G o v e rn m e n t’s b rie f is f a ir w h e n it p o in ts o u t th a t “it w a s D r. H a ll’s c o u n se l w h o a sk e d th e c o u rt to sen tenc e M rs. H all first , . . . there b yen su ri n g that the c o u rt w ou l d h ear the g ov ernm ent’ s ar den tadv ocacycon cerni ng M rs . H al l befor e i ti m pos ed s ent ence on D r . H al l

. ” A ppel l ee’ s br

. at 5 39. T he G overnm entfur thercont ends thatw hi l e “the di s tr i ct courtpr ovi ded a s i ngl e opportuni tyforal l ocut i on, ” “the governm entus ed thatoppor tuni tyt o s peak e xt ens i vel yabout M rs . H a ll a n d to s a yv ir tu a lly n o th in g a b o u t D r. H a ll.” Id . a t 3 8
.27 W e emphas i ze thateven though i n addr es s i ng the s ent ence r ecomm endat i on i s s ue w e natur al l ypr i m ar i l yhave di s cus s ed thos e s t at ement s bythe G overnm entthatcoul d be cons i der ed as r ecomm endi ng a s ent ence forH al l , m os tof the G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entconce rni ng the 18 U

. S. C
. § 3553( a) s ent enci ng fac t or s undoubt edl yw as cons i s t entw i th i t s pl ea a g re e m e n t w ith H a ll, e ith e r b e c a u se th e G o v e rn m e n t p lain ly d ire c ted its sta tem e n ts to G ra y so n -H a ll o r b e c a u se th e sta tem e n ts conce r ned H al l ’ s “cha r act erand anycr i m i nal conduct , ” w hi ch hi s pl ea a gr eementperm i t t ed. A pp. at5. Forexampl e, the G overnm entnot es thati t“s poke atl ength conce rni ng the other S e c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs a s th e yc o n c e rn e d M rs. G ra y so n -H a ll bar el ym ent i oni ng D r . H al l ’ s name, and onl ydoi ng s o i n the cont extof a r efe r ence t o hercr edi tcar d debt( the [pr es ent ence r eport ] di d notdi s t i ngui s h herdebtfr om hi s ) and heract i vi t i es at O R A ( w hi ch, fac tual l y , w er e j oi ntact i vi t i es w i th hi m )

. . . . ” A ppel l ee’ s br

. at29. T hus , the part i es agr ee thatthe G overnm ent ’ s comm ent s r egar di ng H al l i n i t s di s cus s i on of G r ay s on- H al l ’ s i nvol vementw i th O R A w oul d notcons t i tut e a b re a c h o f

its p lea a g re e m e n t w ith H a ll b e c a u se th e yc o n stitu te
“ f a c ts re lev a n t to se n ten c in g in c lu d in g e v id e n c e re latin g . . . to the cha r act erand anycr i m i nal conductof the def endant

. . . . ” A pp. at5; s ee appel l ee’ s br

. at34; appel l ant ’ s br

. at15. Forthat sa m e re a so n , w e a lso n o te th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s c o m m e n ts re g a rd in g H a ll i n d isc u ss in g d e f e n d a n ts’ a ss e ts d id n o t v io late H a ll’ s p le a a g re e m e n t. In re tro sp e c t H a ll m a yh a v e b e e n u n re a listic to e x p e c t, i f he di d s o, thatthe G overnm ent ’ s s t at ement s r egar di ng G r ay s onH al l ’ s s ent ence w oul d nothave the capaci tyt o i m pacton the c o u rt w h e n it co n sid e re d h is s e n ten c e . In f a c t, H a ll l ik e lysh o u ld h a v e e x p e c ted th a t, i n lig h t o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t re a c h e d b yh is w i fe a nd the i dent i cal r ol e i n the cr i m es pl ay ed byH al l and G r ay s on- H al l , the G overnm entw oul d be maki ng re c o m m e n d a tio n s a n d c o m m e n ts a s to G ra y so n -H a ll th a t co u ld affect hi m . T here i s no escap e from the real i tythat this case di ffe r s fr om cr i m i nal cas es s uch as drug tr aff i cki ng cons pi r aci es i n w hi ch di ffe r entdefe ndant s m ayhave di ffe r entr ol es i n the o f f e n se s a n d m a yh a v e d if f e re n t cr im in a l re c o rd s s o th a t a r ecomm endat i on as t o one def endantw i l l have l i m i t ed orno28 eff ecton t he ca s e of a notherdefe ndant

. H al l and hi s w i fe c o m m itt e d id e n tica l o f

f e n se s in id e n tica l w a y s a n d e a c h c o u ld p o i n tt o th e s a me mi t i g a t i n g s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s o n h i s o rh e ro wn behal f. N onethel es s , H al l pr opos ed and c ons ent ed t o the manner in w h ich h is s e n ten c in g o c c u rre d , i. e ., in a jo in t p ro c e e d in g in w h ich G ra y so n -H a ll w o u ld b e se n ten c e d f irst, w h ich g a v e rise to the pos s i bi l i tythatcomm ent s m eantt o r efe rt o hi s w i fe c oul d be t aken as r eferr i ng t o h i s si tuati on as w el l

. H al l ’s exp res s r equ est forand cons entt o t hi s arr angement , w hen t aken i n conj unct i on w ith the G o v ern m en t’ s ex p li citrec o g n it ion o f th e term s o f H all ’s p lea a g re e m e n t an d its sta tem e n t th a t itw a s lim iti n g its s ent enci ng comm ent s t o G r ay s on- H al l , l eads us t o concl ude that the G overnm ent ’ s comm ent s di d notcons t i tut e a s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on forH al l

. I n the ci r cumst ance s , w e fi nd no err or , oratl eas tno pl ai n err or , i n the court ’ s acc ept ance of H al l ’ s pr opos ed arr angement , and w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe G overnm entdi d notbr eac h the pl ea a gr eementbym aki ng a r ecomm endat i on as t o H al l ’ s s ent ence . C
. W as the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence of H al l t o a one- y earcus t odi al t erm unr eas onabl e? H al l ar gues thathi s s ent ence , w hi ch fe l l w i thi n the r ange re c o m m e n d e d b yth e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s, w a s u n re a so n a b le beca us e the G ui del i nes , w hi ch “e val uat e t ax fe l oni es w i th an elem en t of

fra u d ex ac tl ythe s am e a s the yd o tax m isde m ea n o rs wh i c h i n v o l v e n o mo r e th a n a wi l l f u l n e g l e c to f

a k n o wn s ta tu to ry f

ilin g d u ty,” a re u n re a s o n a b le . A p p e lla n t’ s b r. a t 2 8
. H al l fur therar gues thathi s pr i s on s ent ence of one y earw as unr eas onabl yhi gh w hen compar ed t o nat i onal s t at i s t i cs c o n c e rn in g se n ten c e s f

o r ta x e v a sio n . A f

ter o u r re v iew o f

th is m att erand ourcons i der at i on of the Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece nt s ent enci ng pr onouncement s i n G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t
. at 5 8 6 , a s we l l a s i t s e a r l i e rd e c i s i o n s a n d o u ro wn p r e c e d e n t s , we ar e s at i s fi ed thatw e ca nnothol d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n th e i mp o s i t i o n o f th e s e n t e n c e a n d th u s we c a n n o t d is tu rb it.29 V. CO NC L US I ON Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence ent er ed M ar ch 21, 2007.