Opinion ID: 3154698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Because this appeal follows a guilty plea, we derive the facts from the plea agreement, the change-of-plea colloquy, the unchallenged portions of the presentence investigation report (PSR), and the sentencing hearing transcript. United States v. Ocasio-Cancel, 727 F.3d 85, 88 (1st Cir. 2013). From 2004 to 2012, Oppenheimer was the leader of a drug trafficking organization operating in the public housing projects of Carolina, Puerto Rico. Oppenheimer acted as an enforcer and oversaw the supply and distribution of cocaine, heroin, and other drugs. In May 2012, a grand jury indicted Oppenheimer, along with 73 other individuals, - 1 - on six drug-trafficking-related charges. He pleaded guilty to conspiring to traffic drugs near public housing and to aiding and abetting the use or carrying of a firearm in connection with drug trafficking. The district court dismissed the remaining counts.
The written plea agreement (the Agreement) executed in accord with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B) stipulated that each party would recommend a sentence that fell within the range of 135-168 months on the conspiracy charge. The parties selected this range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines by, in relevant part, assuming a base level Criminal History Category (in other words, no criminal history). The Agreement further provided that the government would not recommend a sentence in excess of 168 months on the conspiracy charge even if the assumed Criminal History Category turned out to be understated. Finally, the Agreement called for a statutory minimum sentence of 60 months for the firearm charge, to run consecutively. All remaining counts were dismissed. The Agreement included a clause waiving Oppenheimer's right to appeal provided that the defendant is sentenced in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Sentence Recommendation provision of this Plea Agreement. At the change of plea hearing, the court determined that Oppenheimer's guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary. - 2 -
After reading from the Agreement at sentencing, the judge asked the prosecutor for the government's position, stating you have the right to request the maximum. The prosecutor answered: That is correct, Your Honor. And the United States will request that we stand by what we have recommended, and that the United States would be able to argue for a sentence within the applicable guideline range. In this case, I understand that the applicable guideline range is a level of 33. And the defendant's criminal history category turns out to be criminal history II, based on the fact that the conviction in the year 2003 was and should be considered relevant conduct for purposes of making that determination. That being the case, the United States, based on what has been proffered to the Court, when the Court asked us in relation to the defendant's participation in the conspiracy, request [sic] that he be sentenced to the maximum of the applicable guideline range.... [T]he United States requests that the Court will take all these factors into consideration in imposing the maximum sentence that could be imposed when taking into consideration the defendant's criminal history category and the total offense level that was stipulated by the parties in this case. This was the first mention in the record of the fact that the PSR calculated a Criminal History Category of II, rather than I as assumed in the Agreement. Slightly later in the proceeding, immediately after an off-the-record discussion at sidebar between - 3 - the Court and the Probation Officer, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: United States, your position is we ought to stay with 135 to 168? [THE PROSECUTOR]: That's the criminal history, I understand that's the agreement, and it was an agreement that was also made with Counsel Contreras, that the 2003 conduct could be considered relevant conduct for the purpose of determining the defendant's criminal history category. THE COURT: But we are not including that all. [THE PROSECUTOR]: So it is not to be included. And then it's total offense level 33, with a criminal history of II, and the guideline range will be 135, 168. THE PROBATION OFFICER: 151 to 181. [THE PROSECUTOR]: 151 to 188. THE COURT: 151 to 188, but your agreement is at 138 [sic], right? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: But page 7 of the agreement, it says: Notwithstanding, the parties specifically agree to the above- mentioned sentence recommendation irrespective of defendant's criminal history... THE COURT: Criminal history. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And resulting guideline range, and it will be 135 to 168. THE COURT: So it was known then by the United States that he could have had a higher history? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Obviously, Your Honor. - 4 - THE COURT: All right. Okay. At that point, it was clear to the court that the government's recommendation was as in the Agreement, and even the belatedly-enlightened prosecutor thereafter sought a high-end sentence of only 168 months on the conspiracy charge. Eliminating any doubt, the judge reiterated that under a Criminal History Category of II, the guidelines sentencing range would have been 151 to 188 months, but the parties stipulated 135 to 168, irrespective if he was history I or II. The judge then imposed a total prison sentence of 150 months for the conspiracy charge and 60 months for the firearm charge for a total of 210 months--a sentence in the middle of the range contemplated by the Agreement.