Opinion ID: 2670174
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Improper Plea Bargaining

Text: Mr. Knittel next contends the trial court misled him at his plea hearing as to whether it would grant a reduction under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Sentencing Guidelines” or “Guidelines”) for acceptance of responsibility. According to Mr. Knittel, the trial court led him to believe it would apply a three-point reduction, though it ultimately applied a two-point adjustment instead. See Pet. Br. at 2. Mr. -7- Knittel now argues that this misinformation constituted improper plea bargaining, as he pled guilty while assuming that he would receive a three-point reduction.3 As the district court’s order denying Mr. Knittel’s habeas petition explains, the trial court specifically told Mr. Knittel that any potential acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was not guaranteed. When Mr. Knittel asked at the plea hearing if he would receive the reduction, the court responded: That would be up to me to decide, and . . . whether or not the government objects to it, if I decide it, it’s in my discretion. I would have to wait until the presentence report, and I can’t tell you that in advance. I will just have to wait and see . . . if I’m satisfied you’ve accepted responsibility for your acts. Dist. Ct. Order at 3. Furthermore, this court has previously stated that “the record does not support [Mr. Knittel’s] contention that the district court promised a three-point reduction.” Knittel, 462 F. App’x at 848. In these circumstances, reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s conclusion that “nothing in the record supports [Mr. Knittel’s] claim that anything the Court said was a deciding factor in his decision to enter into a plea bargain.” Dist. Ct. 3 Mr. Knittel argued in his direct appeal that the trial court had promised him a three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and we rejected this argument. See Knittel, 462 F. App’x at 848. It appears, however, that Mr. Knittel’s argument on direct appeal constituted a challenge to his sentence, whereas he now alleges the trial court improperly engaged in plea bargaining by misleading him as to the extent of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction he would receive. Construing Mr. Knittel’s pleadings liberally, as we must, we conclude he is not procedurally barred from raising his current objection to the trial court’s handling of the acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment. -8- Order at 3 (quotations omitted). The record indicates the trial court properly alerted Mr. Knittel that he may or may not receive an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. We therefore deny COA on this claim.