Opinion ID: 3014035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: As the record indicates, this stipulation

Text: was thoroughly discussed, and specifically We need not, and do not, decide agreed to by Bernard. whether the District Court would have erred had it applied the cross-reference Mr. Jenkins: [Deputy U.S. under U.S.S.G. § 2L2.2(c) without the plea Attorney]: And just to agreement. That is not the issue here. In further clarify, the crossthe context of this case, the government reference referred to in the and the defense stipulated in the plea plea agreement is United agreement that the cross-reference should States Sentencing apply. The sole issue before us on appeal Guidelines 2L2.2(c), where is whether the District Court had the it speaks of a cross authority to accept this plea agreement, reference. . . . which stipulates to a factor or sentence that falls outside the sentencing guidelines range, and absent the agreement, would The Court: Alright. Do not apply. you agree, Mr. Beevers? Bernard entered her guilty plea mid-trial, after the government had nearly Mr. Beevers [Bernard s concluded its case against her and Attorney]: Almost. My presented, by her attorney s own position is it would be for admission, “very strong evidence” that the Court to determine, Bernard had been involved in a drug since the Guidelines dont conspiracy. S.A. at 29. In exchange for 3 expressly say a birth effect would be that it certificate, the guidelines would be, sentencing would would only go up after be as – under the Guidelines Attorney Jenkins would for drug trafficking offense make a motion for upward . . . . [T]he Guidelines departure to invoke that would be the same if she rule. had directly pled to the drug trafficking offense. Thats our understanding . . . [a]nd And I would concede that he Ill waive any argument that has very strong evidence at a specific motion would be this point that the higher required if you, if you need enhancement – but that it, or I ll actually make the would ultimately be your motion, if you need it. d e c i s io n , w h e t h e r t o enhance. The Court: Well, you re stipulating to it, as I Mr. Jenkins: No, no, thats understand. not the deal. The deal is that youre going to stipulate that as pursuant to 2L2.2 . . . or Mr. Beevers: Right. we don t have a plea agreement . . .We re not going to argue about that. The Court: Do you Thats going to be a understand all that, Ms. stipulation. Bernard, the net effect of what that is? (Defendant conferring with counsel.) Mr. Beevers: In that case, we are stipulating that the higher Guideline would Defendant Bernard: Yes, sir. apply, and – The Court: In essence, its The Court: What s the net what you initialed on effect? Paragraph 8 on the plea application, although youre not pleading to a . . . drug Mr. Beevers: The net trafficking offense, the 4 sentencing can be calculated exchange for these benefits, and as part of in accordance, as if you had. the plea agreement, she stipulated to the Do you understand that? applicability of U.S.S.G. § 2L2.2(c). To now ignore that stipulation and not apply § 2L2.2(c) would contravene the clear intent Defendant Bernard: Yes, sir. of both parties in entering into the plea agreement. S.A. 29-31.