Opinion ID: 2995806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Government’s Use of Williams’ Proffer

Text: Finally, Williams contends that the district court erred when it allowed the government to use statements he made 8 No. 01-2864 during his proffer in its rebuttal case and at sentencing. In United States v. Dortch, 5 F.3d 1056, 1066-67 (7th Cir. 1993), the defendant argued that the district court erred in allowing the government to use his proffer in its rebuttal case. On appeal, we set forth the following language from that proffer agreement: [N]o statements or information provided by your client during the “off-the-record” proffer or discussion will be used against your client in any criminal case during the government’s case in chief. That is, however, the only limitation on the use the government may make of your client’s statements. .... [T]he government may use any statements made or other information provided by your client to rebut evidence or arguments materially different from any statements made or other information provided by your client. . . . In addition, we want to emphasize that the above mentioned examples are not totally inclusive of the uses the government may make of your client’s “off-the-record” proffer or discussion. See id. at 1068 n.9. We initially explained that under the plain language of the proffer agreement, the only limitation on the government’s use of the proffer statements was that the government could not introduce the statements during its case-in-chief. See id. at 1068. We then held that a defendant waives any objection to the government’s use of proffered statements when the proffer agreement allows such use. See id.; see also United States v. Cobblah, 118 F.3d 549, 551 (7th Cir. 1997) (“As a contract, a proffer agreement must be enforced according to its terms[, and] [i]t is the language of the contract that binds the parties.”). In the present case, the relevant provisions of Williams’ proffer are identical to the proffer at issue in Dortch. Thus, No. 01-2864 9 we have no problem concluding that Williams waived any objection to the government’s use of that proffer in the government’s rebuttal and at sentencing because the proffer agreement permitted such use.