‘Minute Order Form (06/7) *

United States District Court, Northern District of Hlinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 CR 511 a DATE 10/9/2002
CASE USA vs. Marcel Grant
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due 7
(4) oOo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—_set for at.
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) QO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a\(2).
do) if [Other docket entry) Enter Memorandum Order. Grant’s motion to dismiss is denied. (52-1) At
this point he remains scheduled to go to trial with certain of his codefendants on November 8, 2002.
(il) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

No notices required,

mumber of notices:

. qi

VY tase dockeret

4

v | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. aoe

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

10/9/2002

courtroom date mailed notice

SN deputy’s
initials

Date/time received int
~ central Clerk's Office

mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 02 CR 5117 -
} Lite,
MARCEL GRANT, ) SHED
) Ger 3
Defendant . ) i 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Marcel Grant (“Grant”), one of the defendants in this four-

defendant superseding indictment, has moved for its dismissal on
the ground that its addition of a gun charge against him in Count
Three (a charge absent from the original one-count indictment
that was based only on a bank robbery’) violated the asserted
understanding pursuant to which Grant had made a proffer between
the return dates of the two indictments. With his motion having
been fully briefed, it is ripe for decision.

Essentially the United States' argument in opposition to
Grant's motion (much akin to one made in motions relating to plea
agreements) partakes of the principles of the civil law of

contracts. When the Assistant United States Attorney sent

+ Although the original indictment did not have a separate

gun charge under 18 U.S.C. §924(c) (1) (A), it did allege that
Grant and what were then his two codefendants had “assaulted and
put in jeopardy the lives of bank employees and customers by the
use of a dangerous weapon, namely a firearm.” But the addition
to the superseding indictment has real teeth, for the separate
gun count mandates the imposition of a consecutive sentence of at
least 5 years (or when the firearm is brandished, as Count Three
alleges, a consecutive sentence of at least 7 years).


Grant's attorney a June 13, 2002 letter as to Grant's possible
tendering of a proffer, its penultimate paragraph read:

This letter embodies the entirety of the agreement to

make a proffer. No other promise or agreement exists

between you or this office regarding the proffer.

That being so, there is no occasion to hold an evidentiary
hearing to see whether Grant can better flesh out the asserted
governmental promise to see whether he can sustain his essential
claim of a breach of contract. Grant's position is that he made
his proffer in reliance on an understanding that his cooperation
was being solicited “in exchange for the Government's
recommendation for a reduced sentence”--and the June 13 letter
expressly negates any such understanding. Nor has Grant advanced
any contention that any promise was made at the later dates when
he gave the proffer (June 13 and June 19)--promises that could
arguably have superseded the express caveat quoted above from the
government's June 13 letter.

Accordingly Grant's motion is denied. At this point he

remains scheduled to go to trial with certain of his codefendants

Le Ma ODS. goles

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

on November 8, 2002.

Date: October 9, 2002