Opinion ID: 757749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government's Position on Guideline Adjustments

Text: 77
78 The government stipulated in the plea agreement that it would not oppose Nolan-Cooper's position at sentencing that certain guideline adjustments should not apply. Included in this list was the use of a special skill enhancement contained in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 (1996), which calls for a two-point offense level increase if the defendant used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense. § 3B1.3. Although the written plea agreement did not specifically mention this guideline provision, the government conceded in its sentencing memorandum that the special skill provision would be covered by the terms of the written agreement. At the sentencing hearing, however, the following colloquy occurred: 79 The Government: [I]n accordance with the plea agreement, the Government is not going to comment on the applicability of either the abuse of special skill or with respect to the obstruction in this case. However, I will comment briefly as to the facts in accordance with the plea agreement and with respect to the abuse of special skill I would point out to the Court that on several occasions the defendant in this case specifically mentioned her escrow account as a resource and as a way that she could specially help hide the defendant or the agent's money.... 80 The Court: [L]et me ask you something before you go any further here. What is your agreement with the defendant? It may be better that you just let this go rather than to skirt around the edges to what you can do and not do. If you're going to simply point something that it already on the record, we don't really need that. 81 The Government: Pardon, your honor. 82 The Court: As to--as to those and I'm not going to consider your comments on those two issues. 83 App. at 405-06. Nolan-Cooper contends that the government's statement here violates the plea agreement. 84 The government responds that these comments do not breach the special skill provision of the plea agreement because the agreement also contains a clause reserving to the government the right to comment on the evidence and circumstances of the case and bring to the Court's attention all facts relevant to sentencing. App. at 262. The government submits that its comments were made pursuant to and within the scope of this clause. Nolan-Cooper rejoins that the government's position is untenable under Badaracco, supra. We agree. 85 In Badaracco, the government stipulated that the defendant's conduct did not involve more than minimal planning and thus would not warrant an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2). That section provides for a two-level enhancement when significant affirmative steps were taken to conceal the offense. U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.1 app. note 1(f); 2F1.1(b)(2). At the sentencing hearing, the government stated that Badaracco had taken an affirmative step ... indicating that he was concealing something. Badaracco, 954 F.2d at 939. We found that this comment provided the district court with a basis upon which to ignore or reject the parties' stipulation and apply the enhancement. See id. at 940. Accordingly, we held that the government had violated the spirit, if not the letter of the plea agreement. Id. Despite the government's contention that it was merely exercising its reserved right under the plea agreement to inform the court of the nature and extent of Badaracco's activities, we held that there had been a breach. Id. 86 The present case falls squarely under Badaracco. The government's statement about Nolan-Cooper's use of the escrow account plainly could have given the court a basis upon which to reject the defendant's argument that the special skill adjustment should not apply. Indeed, the statement that Nolan-Cooper's escrow account was a way that she could specially help hide ... the agent's money, arguably tracks the guideline requirement that a special skill must significantly facilitate[ ] the commission or concealment of the offense.... See § 3B1.3. Furthermore, the government's proffered justification--that it was only commenting on the facts pursuant to the reserved right-to-comment clause--is almost identical to the justification that we rejected in Badaracco. 87 Moreover, we have held previously that a promise to take no position on an issue (which, to a defendant, is the functional equivalent of a promise not to oppose) is a promise not to attempt to influence the defendant's sentence on that particular issue. See Moscahlaidis, 868 F.2d at 1362; see also United States v. Brye, 146 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir.1998) (finding breach of plea agreement based on statements by government which implicitly argued against downward departure when government had promised to take no position). The government cannot, consistent with Moscahlaidis, rely on a general provision of the plea agreement permitting it to comment on the facts of the case to defeat the purpose of a specific provision requiring it not to oppose the defendant's position on the applicability of a particular adjustment. 88 The government also argues that its comments were necessary because they were made in response to a number of averments and factual representations by defense counsel with regard to Nolan-Cooper's non-use of a special skill. While the plea agreement permits the government to rebut any statement made by or on behalf of the defendant at sentencing, the government's concession not to oppose Nolan-Cooper's position on the applicability of the special skill enhancement would be meaningless if we permitted the government to respond to the facts as presented by the defendant on this issue with remarks that clearly meant to serve as a possible basis for the district court to ignore the stipulation in the plea agreement. Badaracco, 954 F.2d at 941. As the Tenth Circuit recently noted in Brye: 89 [T]he government breaches an agreement not to oppose a motion when it makes statements that do more than merely state facts or simply validate facts found in the Presentence Report and provide a legal characterization of those facts or argue the effect of those facts to the sentencing judge. 90 Brye, 146 F.3d at 1211 (citing United States v. Hawley, 93 F.3d 682, 693 (10th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 91 This may mean that the government must exercise the option of silence even if it disagrees with the defendant's characterization of the facts. 11 As is the case with any contract, the government is not free to breach its agreement with a defendant because it decides after the fact that it has made a bad bargain. Badaracco, 954 F.2d at 941. On this basis we find that the government breached the special skill clause of the plea agreement. 92
93 For essentially the same reasons, we also agree with Nolan-Cooper that the government breached its promise not to oppose her request for a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). The government stated at the sentencing hearing: 94 Your Honor, with respect to the acceptance of responsibility I feel compelled to comment to the Court that with reference to the proffers that defendant gave, the several proffers, the Government does not believe that the defendant gave complete information. And that has been made known to the defense on more than one occasion.... There are no other facts to support a third point that I am aware of, your Honor.... I would not have commented on this other than the fact that the defense, both in their sentencing memorandum as well as today, commented on the fact that the defendant provided complete information and with referencing [sic] the proffers. 95 App. at 404-05. As above, we find that the government's comments provided the court with a basis upon which to reject Nolan-Cooper's claim that she should receive the full acceptance of responsibility adjustment. This violates Badaracco. 96 The government suggests that this analysis should be altered because, at at least one point during the relevant portion of the sentencing hearing, the government's comments were made in response to a question by the court. We disagree. While such questions may place the government in an uncomfortable situation, it still must inform the court that it cannot answer the question without breaching its plea agreement. Sometimes the better part of valor is discretion. William Shakespeare, King Henry the Fourth, Part I, act V, scene iv, line 12.