NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0630n.06 No. 09-5040 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. NO RMA N R I CK S, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI ST R I CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

B e fo re : B AT CH EL DE R, C hie f Jud g e ; MO OR E, and CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. COOK, C i rc u i t J udg e. The United States appe als the district court’ s decision to sentenc e Norman Ricks be low the statutory mandatory

minimum
. Finding no evidenc e that the g overnme nt obligated itself to pursue a downwar d depar

ture, we reve rse the district co u rt ’s order denying the g overnme nt’s reque st to w i t h d ra w i t s § 5K1.1 motion, vacate Ricks’s sentenc e, and r emand f or
rese ntencing
. I. Rely ing on a

udio-rec orded sa les Ricks made to var ious informants over a three -y ear

period, the g overnme nt char g ed Ricks w ith f ive criminal counts related to his distribut ion of coc aine ba se. Ricks sig ned a written plea acknow ledg ing his guilt and a g ree ing to pr ovide information about other criminal ac tivity . The a g ree ment contained a merg er clause statingthat it “constitute[d] the full andNo. 09-5040

USA v. Ric ks

- 2 - complete a g ree ment and under standing betwee n the par ties.” Rather than obl iga

ting the g overnme nt to press for

a downwa

rd depa rture f rom the statutory mandatory minimum sentenc e under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, it provided an option that “[a]t the tim e of sentenc ing, the United S tates may bring to the Court’s attention the nature , extent, and value of the defe ndant’s for thrig htness,” and f

urther
e nunc ia te d th a t “ [t]his inf or ma tio n w ill be pr ov ide d t o th e Court so that it may be c on sid e re d in deter mining a f

air a nd appropr iate sente nce unde r the fa cts of the c ase.” Following Ricks’s g uilty

plea, the Pr e s e nte n c e I

nvestig ation Report assig ned him an adjusted offe nse leve l of 27 (which inc luded a 3- point reduction for acc eptanc e of r es p o n s i b i l i ty) and a
c ri min a l hi sto ry c a te g or

y of VI , re su lti ng in a

n a dv iso ry

Gu ide lin e s r ang e fr om 1 30 to 1 62 mon ths
. Ti tle 21 U. S.C. § 8 41 (b )( 1) (A ) r e qu ir e d th e c ourt to i mpo se a minimum se nte nc e of 10 y e a rs in prison unless the g overnme nt reque sted a downw ard de parture for subs t an t i al assi stance under § 5K 1. 1. Th e c ourt

re sc he du le d Ri c ks ’s se nte nc ingse ve ra l time s at the ur g ingof bo th p art ie s b e c a

us e Ricks continued to pro v i d e helpful information, and when Ricks aske d the g overnme nt to file a § 5K1.1 motion, the gove rnment ag ree d.
After filing the substantial assistance motion, however, the g overnme nt learne d that Ricks misled investigator s as to his involvement in a murder. Concluding that Ricks brea ched one of the plea a g ree ment’s terms—“to be fully and completely truthful”—the gove rnment m oved to wit hdraw the § 5 K1 .1 mot ion . Ri c ks ob je c te d to the wi thd

ra wa l, a rguin g that th e g ov e rnme nt b ound its e lf to p u r s u e t h e d e p art

u r e , a n d t h u s c o u l d

r e n e g e o n l y u

p o ne s t a b l i s h i n g R i c k s ’ s b r e a c h b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. The district co urt ag ree d that the written plea ag ree ment did notNo. 09-5040

USA v. Ric ks

- 3 - obligate the gover

nment to seek the depar

ture. I t decide d, howeve r, t hat t he parties formed a second, oral c ontrac t after

executi n g t h e written plea by which the g overnme nt ag ree d to press for a substantial-assistance -base d downwar d depar ture on Ricks’s be half.
No re cord e vidence supports the district court’s f inding. I n fac t, ne ither party so argued. The
c ourt ne ve rt he le ss d isc e rn e d a

se c on d a g re e me nt e xiste d, e xpla ini ng :
Ifind that notwithstanding the integ ration cla use in the pl ea ag ree ment dated January 8th, 2007, that t h e subsequent cour se of de aling s betwee n Mr. Ricks and the g overnme nt, which is evidenc ed at lea st by the g overnme nt’s motion or the filing of [t he] go vernme nt’s motion for a 5K1.1 substantial assistanc e depa rture, a nd, presumably , b y at least a nother doc ument which wa s the Kastigar letter that’s not prese nt here in the court, e vidence s t h at the subsequent de aling s . . . betwee n the g o v e r n m e n t an d M r . R i c k s w a s c o n t r a c tu a l i n n a tu r e . . . . [A ]n d t h e c on tr a c t de a lt with the providing of information relating t o o t h er criminal activity betwee n Mr. Rick s [an d ] th e g o v e r

n me n t. A n d

th e r e w a s ana c c e p ta

n c e an d r e je c ti o nand adequate c o n s i deration or promissory estoppel, but that one of the terms of that contra ct, which wa s partially written and partially oral in nature , was that Mr. Ricks provide truthful infor

mation to the gove rnment.
Wit h this the court conc luded that the g overn m en t orally bound itself to pursue the substantial
a ssi sta nc e mot ion

and , th e re fo re , c ou ld no t wi th draw it a bs e nt a sh ow ingthat Ric ks br e a c he d h is obligation to provide truthful information. I n response to the g overnme nt’s contention that no such oral a g ree ment ex i s t ed , t h e cour t asked, “ Well, then what obligation did Mr. Ri cks have to do any thing a fter e x ecution of the first contra ct? ” Be y ond this speculation, the court fa iled to cite any evidenc e to support its factua l finding.No. 09-5040

USA v. Ric ks

- 4 - Af te r h e ari nge vid e nc e a

bo ut t he ve ra c ity of the inf

or ma tio n Ric ks pr ov ide d, the c ourt he ld that the g overnme nt failed to prove by a prepondera nce of the evidenc e that Ricks bre ache d the plea ag ree ment, acc ording ly

denied the g overnme nt’s reque st to wi thdraw its substantial assistance motion, and senten ced Ricks to 100 months in prison—20 months fewer tha n the statutory mandatory

minimum
. The g overnme nt appea led, c o n t ending that the district cour t clear ly err ed whe n it found, without any

evidentiar

y support, that a sec ond, oral a g ree ment preve nted the g overnme nt from withdrawingits subst antial assistance motion.
II.
Traditional and w ell-settled p ri nciples of c ontrac t law g overn our interpre tation and enfor ceme nt of plea a g ree ments. United States v. Robison , 924 F.2d 6 1 2 , 613 (6th Cir. 1991). “The re c an be no c ontrac t w ithout a ‘mee ting of the minds’. Re sta te me nt (

Se c on d) of C

on tra c ts § 17 comment c ( 1981). W h et h er o r n o t there was a ‘mee ting of

the minds’ depends, of

course , on what the pa

rties to the plea a g ree ment intended.” Robison at 614.
The e x istence of

an enf orce able plea

ag ree ment is a question of fa ct , wh i ch we revie w for clea r er ror. Un ite d S

tat es v . Lu k

se , 286 F.3d 906, 909 ( 6th Cir. 2002). I f the terms of a plea ag ree ment are ambig uous, their meaningrests on a determination of the i ntent of t he par ties which,
as a question of fact, we revie w for clear err or. Id
. Where two permissible views of the evidenc e exis t, the district court’s c hoice between the m does not constitute clear err or. Anderson v. Be

ssemerNo. 09-5040

USA v. Ric ks

- 5 - City , 4 70 U. S. 5 64 , 5 73 –7 4 ( 19 85 ). B ut i f w e are “ le ft wi th t he de fi nit e and

fi rm c on vic tio n th a t a mistake has bee n committed” when vie wing the re cord a s a whole, we may hold the district court’s fac tual deter

mination clea

rly err oneous. Harlamert v. W orld Finer Foods, Inc. , 489 F.3d 767, 771 (6th Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation mar k s and citation omi tted). I f, howe ver, the terms ar e unambig uous, their construction is a question of law, which we revie w de novo. Un i t ed S t a tes v. Quesada , 607 F.3d 1128, 1131 ( 6th Cir. 2010).
A. W ritten Plea Agreem ent
We first examine the district court’s dete rmination that the alternating voluntary and compulsory lang uag e of the plea ag ree ment—with its “may” prese nt Ricks’ s forthrig htness t o t he
c ourt , a nd its “ wi ll” pr ov ide inf

or ma tio n for

fa ir se nte nc ing

—d id n ot c omp e l th e g ov e rnme nt t o pursue a downwar d depar

ture. Where a plea

ag ree ment require s the g overnme nt to seek a downwar d depar ture in exchang e for the defe ndant’s substantial a ssistance, the g overnme nt must do so absent a showing by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that the de fenda nt brea ched the ag ree ment. Luk se , 286 F.3 d at 9 1 0

– 12. But no c ase stands f or the proposition that the languag e in Ricks’s plea ag ree ment—which fa ils to m ention a § 5K1.1 motion at all—bi nds the g overnme nt to recommend
a d e p artu r e . M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f w e i n t e r p r e t e d t h e a g r e e m e n t i n R i c k s ’ s f a v o r a t e v e r

y tur n, it require d the g overnme nt a t most to pr esent information reg ardingRicks’s forthrig htness to the court in s om e for

m , n ot n e c e ssa

ri ly by pr e ssi ngfo r a

do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e . T he dis tr ic t c ourt

c or re c tly conclude d that the written ag ree ment failed to r equire that the g overnme nt file or pursue a § 5K1.1 motion.No. 09-5040

USA v. Ric ks

- 6 - B. Contract Modification
We n e xt re vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ho ldi ngthat th e pa rt ie s fo rm e d a

se c on d, or a l c on tr a c t, binding the g overnme nt to its downwar d depar ture re quest unless it c ould showthat Ricks brea ched the ag ree ment first. Be cause no rec ord evide nce suppor ts finding that the pa

rties forme d an ora l
c on tr a c t, we vie w the ho ldi ng a s cle ar e rr or . I t se e ms t he dis tr ic t c ourt

de du c e d it s e xiste nc e sim ply fr om R ic ks ’s c on tin

ue d co op e ratio n a ft e r s ig nin g his wr itt e n p le a and the g ov e rnme nt’ s d e c isi on to file a dow nwar d depar

ture motion. Yet, not e ven Ricks a rg ued that he ha d such an or al ag ree ment from the g overnme nt. When the district court told Ricks’s attorney that he must convince the cour t “that ther e wa s either a completely separ ate subsequent ag ree ment, or . . . somehow g et ar ound that integ ration cla

use,” Ricks’s attorney

contende d only

that the g overnme nt’s filing of a § 5K1.1 motion amended the initi al p l ea a g ree ment’s terms to re quire the g overnme nt to advocate for the de pa rt ur e rathe r t

ha n w ith dr aw i ts r e c omm e nd a tio n. As the g ov e rnment no tes , if ne ith e r p a rt y believed that an oral contra ct exis ted, the re quisite meeting of the minds could not have oc curr ed. And the court acknow ledg ed as much when it commented that to enforc e the a lleg ed contr act, the court must flesh out its oral terms. Ricks’s argument that the g overn m en t ’s i nitial downward de parture motion amended the written plea

ag ree ment’s terms also fa ils. I n order for ther e to be a

later, binding mo d i fication of Ricks’s orig inal plea a g ree ment, there would have to be some indication that both parties intended to cre ate a dditional oblig ations. Otherw ise, there could be no “mee ting of the minds.” Robison, 924 F.2d at 614. T h e § 5 K1
. 1 m o t i on does not evidenc e such intent. All it demonstrates is that theNo. 09-5040

USA v. Ric ks

- 7 - g overnme nt decided to e x erc ise its discretion and move f or a dow nwar d depar

ture. Nothing about thi s mo tio n s ug g e sts that the g ov e rnme nt i n a

ny wa y fe lt b ound

to f ile a mot ion or tho ug ht i tse lf prec luded from late r withdraw ing the motion.
Be cause no evidenc e of a second, oral agr eeme nt exis ts and because the gover nment’s filing of a § 5K 1.1 motion ca n n o t suffice to modify Ricks’s written plea , the district court c lear ly err ed when it found the g overnme nt obligate d to rec ommend the depa rture.
I I I
. The district cour

t corre ctly

held that the wr itten plea ag ree ment d i d n o t require the g overnme nt to seek a downwa rd depa rture, but c lear ly

err ed whe n it found that a subseque nt contrac t mod if ic a tio n oc c ur

re d. Ac c or din g ly , we re ve rs e the c ourt ’s or de r d e nyingthe g ov e rnme nt’ s r e qu e st to withdraw its § 5K1.1 motion, vacate Ricks’s sentenc e, and r emand f or re sentenc ing.