Source: https://casetext.com/case/us-v-west-79
Timestamp: 2020-08-06 07:12:21
Document Index: 457345311

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 664', '§ 439', '§ 501', '§ 5', '§ 202', '§ 202', '§ 664', '§ 439']

U.S. v. West, 392 F.3d 450 | Casetext Search + Citator
Until now, we have had no occasion to say what standard of review applies to a district court's determination…
Typically, courts look at several factors in deciding whether to grant a motion to withdraw a plea, including…
Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Jake WEST, Appellant
392 F.3d 450 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
holding that exception to appellate waiver for sentence exceeding "statutory maximum" did not allow for Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 or Blakely challenge where parties did not intend the term to have such meaning
Trial on the charges contained in the second indictment began with jury selection on October 15, 2002. Ten days later the jury was sworn, and West changed his mind about going to trial. He instead agreed to plead guilty to embezzlement from a pension fund, 18 U.S.C. § 664, and to one count of making a false statement in a DOL report, 29 U.S.C. § 439(b). In return, the government dismissed all remaining charges against him.
Worley proceeded to trial and, after a mistrial for a hung jury, reached an agreement with the government to have the charges dismissed in exchange for restitution.
West first challenges the district court's refusal to grant his motion to withdraw his plea. A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing if he "can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal." Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B). We look to three considerations in reviewing denials of motions to withdraw: "(1) whether the defendant has asserted a viable claim of innocence; (2) whether the delay between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw has substantially prejudiced the government's ability to prosecute the case; and (3) whether the guilty plea was somehow tainted." Hanson, 339 F.3d at 988; United States v. McCoy, 215 F.3d 102, 106 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The last of these is the most important, see United States v. Horne, 987 F.2d 833, 837 (D.C. Cir. 1993), and usually requires a showing that the taking of the plea did not conform to the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. "[A] defendant who fails to show some error under Rule 11 has to shoulder an extremely heavy burden if he is ultimately to prevail." United States v. Cray, 47 F.3d 1203, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1995). We review refusals of motions to withdraw for abuse of discretion. United States v. Weaks, 388 F.3d 913, 916 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Hanson, 339 F.3d at 988.
Several months later, West submitted additional affidavits from his daughter and his attorney in support of a motion in the district court for bail pending appeal. We need not consider these affidavits because they were not part of the record before the court when it denied West's motion to withdraw his plea. See Fed.R.App.P. 10(a); Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of America, 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988) ("Papers submitted to the district court after the ruling that is challenged on appeal should be stricken from the record on appeal."). Even if we were to consider them, they would not affect our disposition of West's appeal.
B. Having found no taint to West's plea, we next consider whether West presents a sufficiently viable claim of innocence to meet the "heavy burden" imposed by Cray, 47 F.3d at 1208. A general denial of guilt is not enough; West "must affirmatively advance an objectively reasonable argument that he is innocent." Id. at 1209. West argues that the district court erred in ruling that his reliance on Van Bourg, IWU's General Counsel, did not amount to a viable claim of innocence. West argues that "at all times" that he was involved in the acts for which he pled guilty "he was acting in accord with his attorney's advice." RM at 13 (Motion to Withdraw Plea). According to West, Van Bourg "consistently advised" him that all his actions were proper and that "no criminal liability could result." Id.
We agree that West does not present a viable claim of innocence because Van Bourg was properly deemed to have acted as his accomplice. The defense of advice of counsel necessarily fails where counsel acts as an accomplice to the crime. See United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 347 (5th Cir. 1984) ("When the lawyer is a partner in a venture, takes a share of the profits, or is not a lawyer who had no interest save to give sound advice for a reasonable fee the advice of counsel defense is unavailable.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
We therefore do not address whether the defense of advice of counsel would have applied had West's attorney not been deemed an accomplice. See United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (good faith reliance on advice of counsel is a defense to the charge of embezzlement under 29 U.S.C. § 501(c)).
The proffers included with the guilty pleas of other top union officials, as outlined in the government's sentencing memorandum, adequately show that Van Bourg was a co-participant in the embezzlement scheme. Van Bourg was integral to the decision to cover-up the true amount of disbursements to West in the union's LM-2 Reports. At a meeting between IWU officials and the union's accountants, Van Bourg indicated that he did not want to comply with LM-2 reporting requirements. He then asked the accountants what they would say if subpoenaed to testify about the meeting. When Van Bourg was told by the accountants that they would testify truthfully, he recommended that West fire them.
The evidence suggests that Van Bourg was also a participant in the arrangement to secure full pension benefits for Worley. Van Bourg had earlier advised local union agents, in the presence of West, that it was a crime to inflate pension benefits. West nevertheless states that Van Bourg "assured [West] that he could make it all legal." RM at 17 (West Declaration). A defendant may avail himself of an advice of counsel defense only where he makes a complete disclosure to counsel, seeks advice as to the legality of the contemplated action, is advised that the action is legal, and relies on that advice in good faith. See SEC v. Savoy Industries, 665 F.2d 1310, 1314 n. 28 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Van Bourg's mere assurance that he could "make it all legal" falls well short of these requirements and, in light of the other evidence on which the district court relied, does nothing to undermine the conclusion that Van Bourg was himself part of the criminal enterprise. The district court was warranted in finding that Van Bourg acted as an accomplice and properly concluded that West could not present an advice-of-counsel defense. It was therefore no abuse of discretion for the district court to rule that West did not present a viable claim of innocence.
C. Finally, the district court placed some reliance on the possible prejudice the government would suffer if West were allowed to withdraw his plea. While prejudice may properly be taken into account, it "has never been dispositive in our cases." Hanson, 339 F.3d at 988; see also Cray, 47 F.3d at 1208. Although it certainly appears that the government would be prejudiced here, we need not consider the matter further. West has not shown that his plea was tainted, nor has he satisfied Cray's "heavy burden" by presenting a viable claim of innocence. These considerations suffice to decide that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing West's withdrawal motion. See Cray, 47 F.3d at 1208.
We are easily persuaded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying West an evidentiary hearing or the alternative relief of specific performance. A district court need hold an evidentiary hearing on a plea withdrawal only where the defendant offers "substantial evidence that impugns the validity of the plea." United States v. Redig, 27 F.3d 277, 280 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). As explained, that was not the case here. With regard to specific performance, West does not allege any breach of the express terms of the plea agreement, and since the district court properly found no enforceable promise by the government regarding sentencing, such a promise obviously could not provide the basis for any form of relief.
The remainder of West's appeal involves several challenges to his sentence. He offers three reasons why his sentence should be vacated: (1) the district court relied on improper evidence in applying enhancements to his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) the court did not give him an opportunity to cross-examine other union officials about the proffers submitted with their guilty pleas, in purported violation of his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right; and (3) his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as understood in Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), because it was based on facts that were neither admitted nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Before we reach any of these arguments, however, we must first address whether West has waived the right to appeal his sentence.
RM at 6-7 (Plea Agreement).
The government asks us to give this waiver full effect. It argues that we have enforced a similar waiver before, see In re Sealed Case, 283 F.3d 349, 355 (D.C. Cir. 2002), and that other circuits have honored such waivers in certain circumstances, see, e.g., United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1324-28 (10th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hernandez, 242 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2001). Sealed Case helps the government, but does not resolve the issue. First, in Sealed Case, the defendant agreed, after he was tried and convicted, to waive the right to appeal that conviction. His waiver thus applied to a proceeding that had already taken place, not, as here, to one that had yet to occur. Moreover, the only ground on which the defendant in Sealed Case challenged his waiver was that his plea had not been taken in accordance with Rule 11. If the plea was not valid then the plea agreement — including the waiver of the right to appeal — would not be enforceable. Once we determined that there was no Rule 11 error, the defendant offered no other reason to deny effect to the waiver with respect to the defendant's other claims.
West, for his part, offers no reason why we should not honor the waiver here. His opening brief simply raises his challenges to the sentence, without addressing the explicit waiver barring such challenges. In his reply brief, he reserves one short paragraph for a response to the government's contentions. He first asserts that the waiver is void because the entire plea agreement was the result of "fraud in the inducement," i.e., because it was the product of false promises by the government regarding his sentence. Reply Br. at 8. This is merely a reprise of his argument that his plea was tainted — one we have already rejected.
West then suggests that his Blakely challenge falls within an exception to the waiver allowing appeal if "the Court sentences Mr. West to a period of imprisonment longer than the statutory maximum." This argument, of course, does not deny that a waiver of appeal rights is valid, but only that this particular waiver does not cover West's Blakely claim. If anything, this argument implicitly acknowledges the waiver's validity.
At oral argument, counsel argued that the waiver's exception for upward departures under § 5K2 of the Guidelines permits an appeal of the enhancements applied to West's sentence. When the court pointed out the distinction between sentencing enhancements and upward departures under the Guidelines, counsel acknowledged his mistake and conceded the point. He did not challenge the waiver's validity.
This requires some explication. The Supreme Court held in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that, except for the fact of a prior conviction, "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." In Apprendi, "statutory maximum" had a relatively clear meaning it was the maximum penalty allowed by the criminal statute that the defendant was charged with violating. See id. at 468-69, 120 S.Ct. at 2351-52 (judge's finding of fact raised statutory maximum from 10 to 20 years). In Blakely the Supreme Court applied Apprendi to a state sentencing guidelines scheme, and explained that, in that context, "the `statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant." Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2537.
The question is one of interpretation, informed by principles of contract law. Ahn, 231 F.3d at 35; United States v. Jones, 58 F.3d 688, 691 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Applying those principles, we find it implausible that at the time of the plea agreement the parties could have understood "statutory maximum" to mean "statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes," as West suggests. If the exception means what West says, it could only relate to a challenge under Apprendi. But this court certainly did not give West any reason to believe that the exception's language would preserve an Apprendi attack on the Guidelines. Indeed, our decisions, like those of other circuits, consistently refused to apply Apprendi to the Guidelines or to interpret "statutory maximum" as West urges us now to do. United States v. Fields, 251 F.3d 1041, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2001); In re Sealed Case, 246 F.3d 696, 698-99 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("it is hard to see how the [Supreme Court] could have intended to mandate the heightened standard for application of the Guidelines' enhancement instructions when the resulting sentence remains within the statutory maximum").
Indeed, West himself seems to have read the exception differently before Blakely. In his opening brief, submitted before Blakely was decided, he did not raise any Apprendi claim at all; it was only in his reply brief — and after the Supreme Court decided Blakely — that he argued that the exception covered a challenge to the Guidelines. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202 cmt. b (1981) ("In interpreting the words and conduct of the parties to a contract, a court seeks to put itself in the position they occupied at the time the contract was made.").
Furthermore, reading the "statutory maximum" exception as preserving an Apprendi attack on the Guidelines is flatly inconsistent with the rest of West's plea agreement. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202(2) (1981) ("A writing is interpreted as a whole, and all writings that are part of the same transaction are interpreted together."). The same section of the agreement sets out the maximum fines and periods of imprisonment for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 664 and 29 U.S.C. § 439(b). See RM at 6 (Plea Agreement). The most reasonable inference is that "statutory maximum" in the waiver exception refers to these. In addition, as the agreement makes clear, West "understands that his sentence will be imposed in accordance with the United States Sentencing Guidelines . . . and that the Judge, in his sole discretion, will determine the facts relevant to sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines." Id. Having consented in such plain terms to sentencing under the Guidelines, West would have us believe that he nevertheless reserved a constitutional challenge to the Guidelines through an exceedingly subtle employment of "statutory maximum." We find such a reading of the agreement untenable.
We emphasize that we decide here only the narrow issue of whether the exception to West's waiver of appeal rights allows him to attack his sentence under Blakely and Apprendi. It does not. We do not reach either the question whether such waivers are valid as a general matter — because appellant does not argue otherwise — or whether by simply pleading guilty West waived, or could have waived, his Blakely rights. What we do decide is that a waiver of the right to appeal a sentence will be enforced if the defendant gives us no argument why it should not be, and that this particular waiver covers all the sentencing claims West seeks to advance on appeal.
holding defendant may not attack sentence imposed under the federal sentencing guidelines by using Blakely or Apprendi
enforcing waiver but affirming district court's judgment rather than dismissing appeal
stating that the "most reasonable inference" is that the phrase "statutory maximum" in the exception to a defendant's appellate rights waiver refers to "the maximum fines and periods of imprisonment for violations" of the statutes of conviction
requiring that an attorney advise the defendant that the specific contemplated action is legal
Summary of this case from United States v. Bruner