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 7-17-2008 

# U SA v . Hick s P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-2245

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . H ick s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 831. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/831H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni or J udge of t he U ni t ed St at es C our t of * A p p e a ls f

o r t h e N in th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 

### NO T P RE CE DENT I AL

UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

__________ 

### No. 07- 2245

__________ 

### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. RI CHARD ALLEN HI CKS, Appe l l ant

__________ 

### On Ap pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e M id d le D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. Cr i m i na l No. 06- c r - 00055) D istrict Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M alco lm M u ir

__________ 

### Subm itte d u nd er

Th ir d C ir cuit

LA R 3 4.1(a) on Mar c h 27, 2008 B efor e: M cK E E , R E N D E L L and TA SH I M A , C i r cui t J udges * Filed: Jul y

17, 2008

__________ 

### OPINI ON OF THE COURT

__________ 

### TA SH IMA, Circ uit Jud ge.

### We h av e j urisd ictio np ursu an t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 

### 1 2 9 1 an d1 8 U .S .C . § 

### 37 42 (a ). 1 

### 2 D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t R ich a rd A llen H ick s p lea d e d g u ilt yto d istrib u tin g c h ild p o rno g rap h y , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 2 A (a)(2)(A ). 

### I n apl e aa gr e e m e nt , the go vernm ent andHicks s tipu late d to a fiftee n-year s ente nce. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt , how ever , im p o seda sev en teen -year an dsix -m o n thterm o f im p riso n m en t. A t issu e o nap p eal is whe the r the Di s tr i c t

Court vi ol at e d Fe de r a l Rul e of Cr i m i na l Pr oc e dur e 11( c ) ( 1) ( C) by im po si ng a s ente nce m ore s ever e than the fifteen-year t er m st ipulat ed to in the ple a a gr e e m e nt . Be c aus e , e ve n i f we a s s um e that the Di s tr i c t

Court e rr e d, Hi c ks i s not e nt i t l e d t o any

r e m e dy be yond that

whi c h he a l r e a dy

ha s be e n a ffor de d – nam e l y , the o p p o rt un i ty t o w i th dr aw h i s g u i l ty

p l e a–w e w i l l a f

f i rm. 1 

### I . B ecau se w e w rite p rim arily f o r th e b en ef

it o f th e p arties, w e d iscu ss th e f acts o n ly a s ne c e s s ary

t o i nform

our di s c us s i on. On Fe br

uary 13, 2006, Hi c ks wa s arr e s t e d for il le gall y dist ribu ti ng chil d p orno graphy to an un derc ov er

agent posing as a

fo urte en-yearo ldg irl. H ick s n eg o tiateda b in d in g p lea ag reem en t w ithth e g o v ern m en t p ursu an t to Ru le 11 (c )( 1)(C). Para graph 1 3 o f the agree m ent c on ta ined a s tipu lati onthat , given H ick s’ p rio r qu alif

yin g co n v ictio nun d er 1 8 U .S .C . § 

### 2252A( b) ( 1) for s e xua l a s s aul t

on a ch ild , H ick s w o u ld“ . . . b e sen ten cedto th e m an d ato ry m in im u m o f 1 5 years’ im pris on m ent, [and ] b e s ub

ject to a l ifet im e on sup er

vise d rel ea se . . . . ” The plea agre em ent a ls o p rovided a rem edy if the Dis tr ic t Cou rt

fail ed to im

po se the s tipu late d

### 3

s e nt e nc e . “ I f at

s e nt e nc i ng the c ourt

fa i l s t o a c c e pt

the s t i pul at i ons of the part i e s , or i m pos e s as e nt e nc e gr e at e r

than that a gr e e d t o by

the part i e s , the n the de fe ndant ha s the rig h t to w ith draw f

ro m th is ag reem en t an dw ith draw an y g u ilty p lea en teredp ursu an t to th is ag reem en t.” At the c hang e of p le a heari ng onJuly 31 , 200 6, the probati onof fice r e st im at ed that the Gui de l i ne r ange woul d or di nar i l y be 121 t o 151 m onths , but be c aus e of the 180- m onth m andat ory- m i ni m um s e nt e nc e , the Gui de l i ne t e rm woul d be 180 m onths , or fi ft e e n ye ar s . I n the pl e ac ol l oquy , the part i e s and the c ourt di s c us s e d par a gr a

ph 13 of the pl e aa gr e e m e nt

at l e ngth. The c ourt

a l t e r e d the l angua ge i n the pl e aa gr e e m e nt s l i ght l y t o pr ovi de that

Hi c ks ’ r i ght

t o wi thdr aw woul d onl y

be a c t i vat e d “ i f at

s e nt e nc i ng the Court . . . i m pos e s as e nt e nc e gr e at e r

than that a gr e e d t o a s s e t

forth . . . by

the p arties.” H ick s’ co un sel stated , “I b eliev e yo ur lan g u ag e is w h at th e p arties in ten d ed ,” and Hi c ks ’ c ouns e l l at e r

r e i t e r at e d, “ wi th r e s pe c t

t o the num

be r of ye ar s , the de fe ndant r e s e rve s the r i ght

t o wi thdr aw hi s gui l ty

pl e ai f the Court

doe s not a c c e pt the s t i pul at i on that he be se ntence d to ser

ve 15 years .” The Di s tr i c t

Court l at e r a s ke d Hi c ks , “ [d]o you unde r s t and that you m i ght

on the ba s i s of your

gui l ty pl e ar e c e i ve am or e s e ve r e s e nt e nc e than that whi c h i s r e que s t e d or r e c omm e nde d by

your att orne y , the gove rnm e nt att orne y , the pr obat i on offi c e r or a l l of the a bo ve?” Hicks answer ed, “ Yes s ir , I ’m awar e of that. ” An Oc t obe r

25, 2006, pr e s e nt e nc e r e port c ont a i ne d adi ffe r e nt

Gui de l i ne r ange

### 4

than the e st im at e given at the July hear ing. Inst ea d o f 1 80 m on ths, the r ec al culate d Gu idel ine r ange was 210 to 26 2 m on ths. In an order date d O ct ob er 31 , 200 6, the Dis tr ic t Co urt dir ec te d the part ie s t o f il e a jo int bri ef explai ning wh y “justi fiable re as on s” exis te d to im po se a s ente nce two years and six m on ths bel ow the a dv is ory Gu idel ine r ange, ci ti ng U.S.S.G. § 6 B1 .2(c )( 2). On D ec em ber 8, 200 6, the Dis tr ic t Cou rt is sued an order i n whi c h i t

“ r e je c t [e d] [] the part i e s ’ joi nt s e nt e nc e r e c omm e ndat i on, ” fi ndi ng no “justi fiable re as on s” to ac ce pt a bel ow -Guideli nes s ente nce. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt then pr ovi de d Hi c ks an opport uni ty t o wi thdr aw hi s pl e a . The c ourt furthe r a dvi s e d the part i e s that , i n the e ve nt

that Hi c ks di d not

wi thdr aw hi s pl e a , “ the i r s e nt e nc i ng r e c omm e ndat i on [woul d] i n a l l pr obabi l i ty not be a c c e pt e d” at

s e nt e nc i ng. Hicks did no t wit

hdraw h is plea

and inste ad file d a m otion to rec on si der. In an o rd er d atedJanu ary

5 , 2 0 0 7 , th e D istrict C o urt d en iedth e m o tio n . T h e D istrict C o urt em p h asized“H ick s’[ ] aw aren ess an dco n tem p latio no f th e p o ssib ility

th at [ th e co urt] co u ldim p o se a sen ten ce o f

in carceratio ng reater th an1 5 years,” an dco n clu d edth at it “r et ai ned the abil it

y to im po se any lawf ul se ntence [,] including a s ente nce greate r than that to wh ic h the part ie s s tipu late d.” The Distri ct Co urt then g ave Hic ks another op po rt un it y to withdraw his ple a. At the Apr i l 18, 2007 s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng, Hi c ks c ont i nue d t o ar gue that the Di s tr i c t Court wa s bound by

the fi ft e e n- ye ar

s t i pul at e d s e nt e nc e i n the pl e aa gr e e m e nt but also arg u edth at su cha sen ten ce w o u ldb e anap p ro p riate ap p licatio no f th e 1 8 U .S .C . §

### 5

3553( a ) fa c t or s . The Di s tr i c t Court di s a gr e e d on both c ount s . Aft e r e xpl a i ni ng the r e a s ons for

the s e nt e nc e and i t s c ons i de r at i on of the 18 U. S. C. § 3553( a ) fa c t or s , the Di s tr i c t Court i m pos e d as e ve nt e e n- ye ar

and s i x- m onth t e rm

of i m pr i s onm e nt , the l ow end o f the Gu idel ine r ange. II . H i cks ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t acc ept ed t he R ul e 11( c) ( 1) ( C ) pl ea a gr eement and t hats uch ac cept ance bound t he cour t t o t he fi ft een- y eart er m , m aki ng hi s s event eeny earand s i x- m ont h s ent ence unl aw ful . H i cks as ks t hi s cour t t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence and di r ectt he D i s t r i ctC our t t o i m pos e t he s t i pul at ed fi ft een- y eart er m as r emedy fort he br eac h. 

### “W e e xerc is e ple nary

re view ov er

the quest ion o f w hether

the t er m s of a plea agre em ent have been violat ed.” Un it ed Stat es v. Bernar d, 37 3 F .3d 3 39 , 341 (3d C ir . 20 04 ) ( ci ti ng Un it ed Stat es v. Rivera , 357 F.3d29 0, 29 4 (3dCir. 20 04 )) . R u le 11( c) ( 1) ( C ) pr ovi des t hatpar t i es t o a pl ea a gr eement m ayr ecomm end a s peci fi c s ent ence , and t hat“s uch a r ecomm endat i on or r eques t bi nds t he cour t ” once t he cour t acc ept s t he a g re e m e n t. “It is a x io m a tic u n d e r R u le 1 1 th a t o n c e a c o u rt a c c e p ts s u c h a n a g re e m e n t, i t m u st b e e n f

o rc e d a t se n ten c in g .” B e rn a rd , 3 7 3 F .3 d a t 3 4 5 . O n c e a stip u late d se n ten c e is a c c e p t e d , t h e c o u r t i s n o t a u t h o r i z e d t o r e p l a c e t h e s e n t e n c e t e r m wi t h o n e t h a t i t d e e ms m or e appr opr i at e, even w her e, as her e, t he s t i pul at ed s ent ence fal l s bel ow t he G ui del i ne r ange. See i d. at343- 44 n. 6 ( r ei t er at i ng t he pr i nci pl e t hatR ul e 11 al l ow s “pl ea

### 6

agr eement s t hatbar gai n fordepar t ur es fr om t he s ent enci ng [G ] ui del i nes ”) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed S tat es v . G il ch ri st, 1 3 0 F . 3 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 )). T he par t i es di s put e w het hert he pl ea a gr eement w as acc ept ed i n i t s ent i r et yor w het hert he D i s t r i ctC our t defe r r ed ac cept ance of t he s t i pul at ed s ent ence unt i l s ent enci ng and s ubs equent l yr ej ect ed i t . U l t i m at el y , how ever , t he cour t ’ s acc ept ance or nonac ce p tanc e o f th e p lea a g ree m en t i s im m aterial . E v en if w e a ssu m e tha t t h e D ist ri ct C o u rt vi ol at ed R ul e 11 and t hus caus ed t he pl ea a gr eement t o be br eac hed, H i cks has been aff or ded t he onl yr emedy t o w hi ch he i s ent i t l ed pur s uantt o t he t er m s of t he pl ea agr eement : t he oppor t uni t yt o w i t hdr aw hi s pl ea. T he r emedy forbr eac h of a pl ea a gr eement i s gener al l yei t hers peci fi c per for m ance of t he agr eement or t he oppor t uni t yt o w i t hdr aw t he gui l t ypl ea. Sant obel l o v. N ew Y or k, 4 0 4 U .S . 2 5 7 , 2 6 3 (1 9 7 1 ). W e a n a lyze p le a a g re e m e n ts u s in g c o n tr a c t la w s ta n d a rd s . U n ited S tate s v . W ill iam s, 5 1 0 F .3 d 4 1 6 , 4 2 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). In d o in g so , w e “ lo o k to w hatw as r eas onabl yunder s t ood by[t he def endant ] w hen he e nt er ed hi s pl ea of gui l t y . ” G i l chr i s t , 130 F. 3d at1134 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on and quot at i on m ar ks o m itte d ). H er e, t he par t i es agr eed t hati n t he eve nt t he D i s t r i ctC our t di d not i m pos e t he s tip u la te d s e n te n c e a t s e n te n c in g , H ic k s re ta in e d th e ri g h t to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p le a . T he pl ea a gr eement , as r evi s ed byt he cour t and appr oved byt he par t i es att he cha nge of pl ea he ar i ng, pr ovi ded t hat“i f ats ent enci ng t he cour t . . . i m pos es a s ent ence gr eat ert hanH icks also arg u es th at t h e D ist ri ct C o u rtco n tr av en ed U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 2 54 3 U . S . 22 0 (200 5), by rej ect i ng t he fift een-y ear s entence i n the pl ea agreem ent because n o “jus ti fiab le reaso n s” e x ist ed fo r suc h a d ep arture. T h e “ justi fiab le reaso n s” stan d ard comes fr om U . S. S. G . § 6B 1. 2( c) ( 2) , a pol i cys t at ement pr ovi di ng “s t andar ds for a c c e p tan c e o f

p lea a g re e m e n ts.” W e h a v e n o t ad d re ss e d th e e f f e c t o f B o o k e r a n d its pr ogenyon t hi s pol i cys t at ement , and w e nee d not addr es s i t her e gi ven t he pos t ur e of H i cks’ case. E ven i f t he D i st ri ct C ou rterr ed in r el y i ng on t he p oli cyst at em ent, i t did so w hen r ej ect i ng t he pl ea a gr eement , not w hen i m pos i ng t he s ent ence i t s el f. Pur s uantt o t he t er m s of t he pl ea a gr eement , i f t he di s t r i ctcour t r ej ect ed t he s t i pul at ed s ent ence – for w hat everr eas on and eve n i f t he dec i s i on w as i n er r or – H i cks ’ onl yr emedy w as t he o p p o rt u n ity to w ith d ra w h is p le a , a re m e d yh e w a s a f f o rd e d tw ic e . Hi c k s d o e s n o t s e p a r a t e l ya t t a c k t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f h i s s e n t e n c e . E v e n i f

we w er e t o r evi ew t he ul t i m at e s ent ence forr eas onabl enes s , U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), w e w o u ld a f f irm . W e a re “ sa tisf

ied th e c o u rt e x e rc ise d its di s cr et i on bycons i der i ng t he r el evantfac t or s . ” I d. at329 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C unni ngham, 429 F. 3d 673, 679 ( 7t h C i r . 2005) ) . A t s ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our t never m ent i oned t he “j us t i fi abl e r eas ons ” s t andar d. T he D i s t r i ctC our t r epea t edl ynot ed t he advi s or ynatur e of t he G ui del i nes , and t he r ecor d s how s t hati t “gave m eani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” I d. D i s cer ni ng no er r or and hea r i ng no ar gum ent fr om H i cks t hatt he s ent ence i m pos ed w as unr eas onabl e, w e w oul d aff i r m on t hi s bas i s as w e ll. 

### 7 t hatagr eed t o . . . t hen t he def endanthas t he r i ght t o w i t hdr aw . ” H i cks ’ couns el aff i r m ed t hat“t hati s t he i nt entof t he par t i es . ” B eca us e “t he pl ea a gr eement i t s el f pr ovi des t he r emedy of w i t hdr aw al fr om t he pl ea[ , ] . . . t he opt i on of s peci fi c per for m ance ent i t l es [H i cks ] t o t he s ame r emedy as w i t hdr aw al . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M andel l , 905 F. 2d 970, 973 ( 6t h C i r . 1990) . T hus , even i f w e as s um e t hatt he cour t acc ept ed t he pl ea a gr eement and s ubs equent l yvi ol at ed R ul e 11 byi m pos i ng a s ent ence hi ghert han t he s ent ence i t w as bound t o i m pos e, H i cks i s not ent i t l ed t o anyr emedy bey ond t he oppor t uni t yt o w i t hdr aw h i s g u i l t y p l e a , w h i c h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s g r a n t e d t w i c e a l r e a d y. 2 

### II I.

### 8

Fo r the re as on s s et

fo rth abo ve, we wil l AFF IRM the ju dg m ent andse ntence im p o sedb y th e D istrict C o urt.