# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 25 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Fran k G. Ren do n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 3, 2 01 4

Fil ed : M ay

22 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Fran k Ren do n pl ed gu il ty t o co ns p i r a c y t o di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of a

m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 ),

an d 84 6. Afte r reac hi ng a pl ea ag reem en t wit h th e go ve rn m en t, Ren do n wro te le tt ers

to th e di s t r i ct co ur t in whi ch he de ni ed ha vi ng di st rib ut ed 50 0 gr am s or m or e an das ke d to be co nv ic te d fo r a lo wer am ou nt

. At se nt en ci ng th e di st r i ct co ur t de ni ed 1

Ren do n an acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y red uc ti on an d se nt en ced hi m to 36 0 m on th s

im pr is on m en t. Ren do n ap pe al s, arg u i n g t h a t th e pr os ecu ti on br each ed th e pl ea

ag reem en t by fai li ng to m ov e fo r a th ree le ve l r e d u c t i o n fo r acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y an d by ag reei ng wit h th e di st ric t co ur t's cal cu la ti on of a dr ug qu an ti ty

am ou nt hi gh er t ha n i n t he pl ea ag reem en t. We affir m

.

I.

Fr a n k R e n do n was arre st ed on Sep te m be r 18

, 20 07

, aft er of

fic ers res po nd ed

to a cal l th at gu n s h o t s w e r e h e ard at hi s Mi ss ou ri ho m e. A se arch of th e ho us e

rev eal ed m et ha m

ph et am in e, di st rib ut io n pa rap he rn al ia

, an d a rif le

. In th e en su in g

in ve st ig at io n of

fic ers le arn ed th at Ren do n was in vo lv ed in a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e in whi ch he an d at le as t th ree co co ns pi rat or s so ld th e dr ug ou t of

Ren do n's ho us e.

Ren do n reac he d a pl ea ag reem en t wit h th e go ve rn m en t un de r whi ch he pl ed

gu il ty an d ad m it te d to th e fact th at "h e was in vo lv ed in th e di st rib ut io n of at le as t 50 0

gr am s of m et ha m

ph et am in e." In th e ag reem en t th e go ve rn m en t st at ed th at it

" b e l i e v e s th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s se ct io n

. . . p ro vi de s fo r a ba se of fen se le ve l of

36 ," whi le Ren do n st at ed th at he "b el ie ve s th e ap pl ic ab l e Gui de li ne s se ct io n

. . .

pr ov id es for a ba se off

en se lev el of 3 2." The p le a ag reem en t als o p ro vi de d t ha t t he

go ve rn m en t wou ld se ek a th ree le v e l red uc ti on fo r Ren do n's acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 3E1 .1. The go ve rn m en t w a s t o fil e a m ot io n

se ek in g th is red uc ti on at se nt en ci ng un le ss Ren do n fai le d to ab id e by th e te rm s of th e

p le a ag reem en t, at te m

pt ed to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea, "o r ot he rwis e en ga ge [d ] i n

co nd uc t in co ns is te nt wit h hi s acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y ." The pl ea ag reem en t al so

The Hon or ab le Gary

A. Fenn er, Un it ed Sta te s Di st ric t J ud ge for th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-st at ed th at th e pa rti es ' es ti m at es wit h res pe ct to t h e g ui de li ne co m pu ta ti on di d no t

bi nd th e di st ric t co ur t or th e pr ob at io n of fic e. Und er pa rag rap h 19 of th e ag reem en t,

th e go ve rn m en t wou ld be rel eas ed fro m it s ob li ga ti on s if, am ong ot he r th in gs

, Ren do n

"v io la te [d ] an y te rm of th is pl ea ag reem en t be twee n th e si gn in g of th is pl ea ag reem en t

an d th e da te of se nt en ci ng ," or if he "p ro vi de [d ] in fo rm at io n to th e Pro ba ti on Offi ce

or th e Co ur t th at [wa]s in te nt io n a l l y misl ead in g, in co m pl et e, or un tru th fu l, or

ot he rwis e b reac h[ in g] th is pl ea ag reem en t."

Afte r si gn in g t he ag reem en t b ut be fo re s en te nc in g, Re nd on wro te two le tt ers

whi ch he se nt to th e di st ric t co ur t. In hi s se co nd le tt er he cl ai m ed th at an ot he r

de fen da nt ha d be en ch arg ed wit h a qu an ti ty of 50 to 20 0 g r a ms

, a nd th at "[t ]he

Pro se cu ti on is ad di ng th es e la rg e am ou nt s of dr ug s th at ne ve r ex ci st ed [s ic ] an d ha ve

be en m ad e up by th es e co -d efen da nt s." He al so wro te "I acce pt res po ns ib il it y fo r an y

wro ng do in g th at ha s so li d ev id en ce ag ai ns t m e," bu t ad de d "I pl ead ed gu il ty to th is

pl ea ag reem en t u nd er fe ar an d i nt im id at io n o f do in g alo t [si c] of ti m e . . . the re was

ne ve r no 50 0 o r m or e g ram s o f dr ug [.] I'm ask in g t ha t you p le as e fi nd m e gu il ty o f

50 to 20 0 gr am s li ke al l m y ot he r co -d efen da nt s." He al so as ke d to be se pa rat ed fro m

th e co ns pi racy.

The pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ion re por t (P SR ) ca lc ula te d ov er 30 0 po un ds (1 36 .08

ki lo gr am s) of m et ha m

ph et am in e to be th e qu an ti ty reas on ab ly fo res eeab le to Ren do n

whi ch le d to a ba se of

fen se le ve l of 38

. It al so reco m m en de d a p p l yi n g a two le ve l

en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si on of a da ng ero us weap on

.

At se nt en ci ng th e di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d it ha d rece iv ed two le tt ers fro m

Ren do n an d ex pl ai ne d th at in th e le tt ers "Mr . Ren do n t ak es th e p os it io n t ha t he di d

no t in fact co m

m it th e cri m e t h a t h e pl ed gu il ty to ." The co ur t in di cat ed it wou ld

de ny cred it fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y on th e ba si s of t h e s e l e t t ers

. Ren do n's

co un se l in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at sh e ha d no t se en th e le tt ers Ren do n ha d se nt

, bu t sh e

arg ue d th at un de r th e pl ea ag reem en t Ren do n ret ai ne d th e ab il it y to ch al le ng e th e

-3

-dr ug qu an ti ty at tri bu te d to hi m

. Afte r th e co ur t p r o v i d e d co un se l wit h th e le tt ers

,

ho wev er, sh e st at ed th at sh e "was no t aware th at Mr. Ren do n ha d writ te n th es e le tt ers

to th is ex te nt to th e Co ur t. So I acce pt th at an d y ou r po si ti on on th e gu id el in es ." The

c o u r t th en as ke d th e go ve rn m en t if it to ok a po si ti on in co ns is te nt wit h th e co ur t ' s

po si ti on on acce pt an ce of resp on si bi li ty, an d th e g ov ern m en t re pl ie d t ha t i t d id no t.

A f t e r Ren do n ob

jecte d to va rio us as pe ct s of th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n

rep or t, th e go ve rn m en t pr od uc ed fo ur wit ne ss es who te st ifi e d to Ren do n's

in vo lv em en t in th e co ns pi racy an d th e qu an ti ty of dr ug s so ld by th e co ns pi racy. The

di st ric t co ur t as ke d fo r th e go ve rn m e n t ' s p os it io n on dr ug qu an ti ty, an d th e

go ve rn m en t st at ed th at t h e qu an ti ty was "i n th e ba ll pa rk of at le as t 30 po un ds of

m et h." The di st ric t co ur t res po nd ed "I ag ree wit h y ou th ere an d if y ou 're no t se ek in g

to su pp or t th e 30 0- po un d es ti m at e." The go ve rn m en t co nf irmed th at it was no t. The

di st ric t co ur t pr oc eed ed to ov erru le Ren do n's o b je c t i o n to th e PSR cal cu la ti on of a

ba se of fen se le ve l of 38

, st at in g "I be li ev e th e ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ba se of fen se

le ve l a s c a l c u la te d un de r th e pr es en te nc e rep or t." The co ur t ad de d a two le ve l

en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si ng a da ng ero us weap on

, res ul ti ng in a to ta l of fen se le ve l of

40

, a n d t h e n as ke d th e go ve rn m en t if it ag reed wit h th e co ur t's cal cu la ti on

. The

go ve rn m en t rep li ed th at it di d. W it h th is to ta l of fen se le ve l of 40 an d a cri m in al

hi st or y cat eg or y of III, Ren do n's gu id el in e ran ge was de te rm in ed to be 36 0 m on th s

to li fe. The co ur t s en te nc ed Ren do n t o 3 60 m on th s.

Ren do n no w ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e go ve rn m en t br ea ch ed the pl ea ag reem en t

by fai li ng to mo ve th e di st ric t co ur t fo r a th ree le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y an d by ag reei ng to a ba se of fen se le ve l of 38 whe n th e pl ea ag reem en t

sp eci fie d a lev el of 3 6.

-4

-II.

Ren do n co nt en ds th at th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t whe n it di d

no t req ue st a th ree le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po n s i b i l i ty. W e rev ie w fo r

pl ai n erro r be cau se Ren do n di d no t m ak e th is ob jecti on at se nt en ci ng

. Uni te d St at es

v. Bi rd ho rs e, 70 1 F.3 d 54 8, 55 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). To ob ta in rel ie f Ren do n m us t sh ow

a "cl ear or o b v i o u s " erro r whi ch affe ct s hi s "s ub st an ti ve rig ht s," an d we wil l on ly

ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n to co rrec t th is erro r i f n o t d o i n g so wou ld "u nd erm in e th e

fai rn es s, in te gr it y

, or pu bl ic rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs ." Uni te d St at es v.

Mar ti n, 5 83 F.3d 10 68 , 10 74 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

Und er th e pl ea ag r e e men t in Mar ti n th e go ve rn m en t ag reed to req ue st a

red uc ti on fo r accepta

nc e of res po ns ib il it y un le ss it were to le arn of in fo rm at io n be fo re

se nt en ci ng whi c h was "i nc on si st en t wit h th e de fen da nt 's acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y ." Id

. at 10 71

, 10 74 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Afte r en te rin g

in to th is ag reem en t, th e d e f en da nt m ad e st at em en ts in jail in whi ch he de ni ed

res po ns ib il it y fo r th e cri m es to whi ch he ha d pl ed

. Id

. at 10 71 –7 2. On th at reco rd we

co nc lu de d th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d no t br each ed it s pl ea ag reem en t by no t req ue st in g

a red uc ti on an d t ha t t he re h ad be en no pl ai n e rro r. Id. at 10 74 –7 5.

W e al so se e no pl ai n erro r in th is cas e. As in Mar ti n, Ren do n's pl ea ag reem en t

co nt ai ne d on ly a co nd it io na l ob li ga ti on fo r th e go ve rn m en t to r e qu es t a se nt en ci ng

red uc ti on

, co nt in ge nt on Ren do n no t "en ga g[ in g] in co nd uc t in co ns is te nt wit h hi s

acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y ." See id

. at 10 71

. In hi s le tt ers to th e di st ric t co ur t,

Ren do n as ke d to be vi ewed ap art fro m th e co ns pi racy and to be fou nd gu il ty fo r an

of fen se in vo lv in g on ly 50 to 20 0 gr am s, rat he r th an th e 50 0 or m or e gr am s to whi ch

he ha d pl ed

. W e co nc lu de th at Ren do n's at te m pt to se pa r a t e hi m se lf fro m th e

co ns pi racy rel e as ed th e go ve rn m en t fro m it s ob li ga ti on to req ue st a red uc ti on fo r

acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y . The g ov ern m en t d id no t b reac h t he pl ea ag reem en t.

-5

-Ren do n arg ue s th at th e reco rd co nt ai ns no ev id en ce t ha t t he go ve rn m en t s aw

th e l e t t e rs he au th or ed , b ut th e di st ric t co ur t in fo rm ed th e pa rti es at se nt en ci ng th at

it ha d recei ve d th e le tt ers an d th at in th e le tt ers Ren do n had ta ke n "th e po si ti on th at

h e d i d no t in fact co m

m it th e cri m e th at he pl ed gu il ty to ." Thi s st at em en t by t h e

di st ric t co ur t rev e a le d th at Ren do n ha d act ed in a m an ne r in co ns is te nt wit h hi s

acce pt in g res po ns ib il it y

, an d th e go ve rn m en t was en ti tl ed to rel y on th at in fo rm at io n.

III.

Ren do n al so as se rts th at th e go ve rn m en t br each ed t he pl ea ag reem en t by

ag reei ng at se nt en ci ng to a ba se of fen se le ve l of 38

. The pl ea ag reem en t ha d refl ect ed

th e go ve rn m en t's be li ef th at th e ap pr op ria te of fen se le ve l was 36 an d Ren do n's own

vi ew th at th e co rrec t le ve l was 32

. Si nc e Ren do n di d no t ob ject to th is al le ge d br each

of th e pl ea ag reem en t at se nt en ci ng

, ou r rev ie w is no w fo r pl ai n erro r. Uni te d St at es

v. Lara, 69 0 F.3 d 10 79

, 10 81 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 2 )

. Pl ea ag reem en ts are es se nt ia ll y

co nt ract s an d "s ho ul d be in te rp ret ed acco rd in g to ge ne ra l co nt ract pr in ci pl es ." Uni te d

St at es v. Dewit t, 36 6 F.3 d 66 7, 66 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). If a pl ea "re st s in an y si gn ifi can t

de gr ee on a pr om is e or ag reem en t o f th e p ro se cu to r, so th at it can be sai d t o b e p art

of th e in du cem en t or co ns id erat io n, su ch p r om is e m us t be fu lfi ll ed .” San to be ll o v.

New York , 40 4 U.S. 2 57 , 26 2 (1 97 1)

.

Ren do n li k e n s h i s c a se to th os e in whi ch ou r co ur t ha s co nc lu de d th at th e

go ve rn m en t br each ed pl ea ag reem en ts b y p r es en ti ng ev id en ce of hi gh er dr ug

qu an ti ti es th an id en ti fie d in th e ag reem en t. See Lara, 69 0 F.3 d at 10 83 ; Dewit t, 36 6

F.3 d at 66 9– 70

. It is far fro m pl ai n th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by fai li ng to ho ld th e

go ve rn m en t to it s ob li ga ti on s un de r th e ag reem en t, be cau se Ren do n li ke ly br each ed

th e pl ea ag reem en t pr io r to se nt en ci ng

. See Uni te d St at es v. Bri tt

, 91 7 F.2 d 35 3, 35 9

(8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) ("[ The de fen da nt 's] at te m pt to us e co nt ract pr in ci pl es of fai rn es s an d

eq ui ty to en fo rce th e go ve rn m en t's ob li ga ti on s un de r hi s pl ea ag reem en t fai ls be cau se

[th e de fen da nt ] hi m se lf is th e br each in g pa rty."). The pl ea ag reem en t st at ed Ren do n's

-6

-po si ti on th at he was res po ns ib le fo r at le as t 50 0 gr am s of m et h a mp h e t am in e, an

am ou n t w h i c h r e q u i red a ba se of fen se le ve l of 32

. U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c )(4 ). In hi s

le tt er to th e di st ric t co ur t Ren do n ne ve rth el es s de ni ed th at he ha d be en in vo lv ed wit h

m or e th an 50 0 gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e an d as ke d th e co ur t to "p le as e fin d [h im ]

gu il ty of 50 to 20 0 gra m s." The la tt er qu an ti ty wou ld eq ua te to a ba se of fen se le ve l

of 26 . U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c )(7 ).

By req ue st in g a ba se o f f e n s e l e v el of 26 in hi s le tt er, Ren do n m ay ha ve

br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t. Si nc e pa rag rap h 19 of th e ag reem en t pr ov id ed th at th e

g o v e r nm en t wou ld be rel eas ed fro m it s ob li ga ti on s in th e ev en t of a br each by

Ren do n, it is no t cl ear un de r th e te rm s of th e ag reem en t th at th e go ve rn m en t was st il l

bo un d at se nt en ci ng by it s earl ie r st at em en t th at th e ap pr op ria te ba se of fen se le ve l ha d

be en 36

. Alt ho ug h th e go ve rn m en t ty pi cal ly fil es a m ot io n ask in g th e di st ric t cou rt

to fin d t h e de fen da nt in br each of a pl ea ag reem en t be fo re it is rel eas ed fro m it s

ob li ga ti on s, the go ve rn m en t di d no t do so he re. See Brit t, 91 7 F.2d at 35 6; se e al so

Uni te d St at es v. Lezi ne

, 16 6 F.3 d 89 5, 90 1 (7 th Ci r. 19 99 ) ("Th e Gov e r n men t

. . .

can no t un il at eral ly de te rm in e th at a de fen da nt ha s br each ed a pl ea ag reem en t. W he n

th e pr os ecu ti on se ek s to es cap e an ob li ga ti on un de r a pl ea ag reem en t on th e gr ou nd s

th at th e de fen da nt ha s fa il ed to m eet so m e pr eco nd it io n, th e de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to

an ev id en ti ary he ari ng .") (c it at io n o m it te d)

.

Si nc e Ren do n can no t sh ow th at he was pr ejud ic ed by th e go ve rn m en t's act io ns

,

we ne ed no t de ci de whe th er Ren do n b r e ach ed th e ag reem en t an d rel eas ed th e

go ve rn m en t of it s ob li ga ti on s. To ob ta in rev ers al on pl ai n erro r rev ie w Ren do n m us t

de m on st rat e th at th e pl ai n erro r affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, m ean in g he m us t sh ow

"a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld ha ve im po se d a le ss er se nt en ce

ha d th e go ve rn m en t" no t br each ed th e ag reem en t. Uni te d St at es v. Je ns en

, 42 3 F.3 d

85 1, 85 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). The se qu en ce of ev en ts in th is cas e pr ev en ts Ren do n fro m

sh owi ng he was p reju di ced by the go ve rn m en t's act io ns

.

-7

-At sen te nc in g th e go ve rn m en t argu ed Ren do n was res po ns ib le for at l eas t 3 0

po un ds

, an d it di d no t argu e fo r th e hi gh er PSR qu an ti ty of 30 0 po un ds

. The cu to ff

be twee n th e ba se of

fen se le ve ls of 36 an d 3 8 o ccu rs at 15 ki lo gr am s of

m et h a mp h e ta m in e, whi ch is an am ou nt sl ig ht ly ov er 33 po un ds

. U.S.S.G.

§§ 2D1 .1(c )(1 ), 2D1 .1(c )(2 ). Thu s, in arg ui ng fo r a d r u g q u a n ti ty of at le as t 30

po un ds th e go ve rn m en t was no t in co ns is te nt wit h it s le ve l 36 es ti m at e in th e pl ea

ag reem en t. Afte r su st ai ni ng Ren do n's ob jecti on to a 30 0 po un d qu an ti ty bu t de nyin g

hi s ob jecti on to at le as t 30 po un ds

, th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e a fin di ng th at th e ev id en ce

su pp or te d th e PSR cal cu la ti on of a ba se of fen se le ve l of 38 an d de ni ed R e n d on 's

ob jecti on to it . Th e co ur t m ad e th is fin di ng be fo re th e go ve rn m en t to ok an y act io n

al le ge dl y in br each of th e ag reem en t; on ly aft erwar ds di d th e co ur t as k if th e

go ve rn m en t agre ed wit h it s calc ul at io n of a to ta l offe ns e of 40 (a bas e of fen se le ve l

of 38 an d a two le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si on of a da ng ero us weap on .) Si nc e th e

di st ric t cou rt m ad e it s fin di ng as to th e ba se of fen se le ve l befo re any al le ge d bre ach

oc cu rred

, Ren do n ha s no t es ta bl is he d th at it wou ld ha ve im po se d a di ffer en t se nt en ce

ha d t he go ve rn m en t ac te d d iff eren tl y . See J en se n, 4 23 F.3d at 8 54 –5 5.

In hi s le tt ers to th e di st ric t co ur t, Ren do n de ni ed res po ns ib il it y fo r pa rti ci pa ti ng

in a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e an d arg ue d fo r

a dr ug qu an ti ty fin di ng of 50 to 20 0 gr am s, an amo u n t s i g ni fic an tl y lo wer th an th e

on e he ha d ag reed to in hi s pl ea a gr eem en t. By writ in g th es e le tt ers

, Ren do n

ex hi b i t e d c on du ct in co ns is te nt wit h acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y an d po te nt ia ll y in

br each of hi s pl ea agre em en t. Mo reo ve r, Ren do n h as no t d em on st rat ed th at he was

pr ejud ic ed by th e go ve rn m en t's ha vi ng ag reed to th e di st ric t co ur t's fin di ng of a ba se

of fen se le ve l hi gh er tha n th at co nt ai ne d in Ren do n's pl ea agre em en t. On th e reco rd

m ad e he re, th e di st ric t c o u r t di d no t pl ai nl y err in it s fin di ng s an d al lo cat io n of

res po ns ib il it y

.

-8

-IV.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-