Opinion ID: 4536770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plea Agreement and Presentence Report

Text: On September 9, 2016, Oneal pled guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). In the plea agreement, the government calculated the adjusted Guidelines offense level applicable to Oneal 5 as 23, based on: (1) a base offense level of 20 for each robbery, 2 see U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(a); (2) a one-level enhancement for a loss greater than $20,000, but less than $95,000, applicable to one of the robberies, see id. § 2B3.1(b)(7)(B); (3) a five-level enhancement based on grouping analysis, see id. § 3D1.4; (5) a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1(a); and (6) a one-level reduction for early acceptance of a plea disposition, see id. § 3E1.1(b). See App. 89–90. The plea agreement estimated a Guidelines sentencing range of 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment, based on the offense level of 23 and “assuming that the defendant falls within Criminal History Category III.” Id. at 90. The plea agreement provided the following disclaimer regarding this estimate: The Guidelines estimate . . . is not binding on the [United States Attorney’s] Office, the Probation Department or the Court. If the Guidelines offense level advocated by the Office, or determined by the Probation Department or the Court is, for any reason, including an error in the estimate, different from the estimate, the defendant will not be entitled to withdraw the plea and the government will not be deemed to have breached this agreement. 2 The plea agreement described Oneal as having a base offense level of 20 for each of six robberies, a figure which included Oneal’s participation in two robberies of jewelry stores in addition to the above-referenced cellphone store robberies. However, the jewelry store robberies were not classifiable as robberies under the Hobbs Act and, accordingly, were not used in the calculation of his offense level at sentencing. 6 Id. at 90–91. The probation department’s final Guidelines calculation, contained in the Fourth Addendum to the PSR dated February 28, 2018, differed in three significant respects from the plea agreement’s calculation. 3 First, the PSR found that Oneal belonged in a criminal history category of VI, rather than III. Second, the PSR applied a three-level enhancement, for possessing or brandishing a dangerous weapon, to the offense level on the ground that Oneal acted as if he had a firearm in his waistband during the three T-Mobile robberies. See U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E). Third, the PSR applied a two-level enhancement, for physically restraining a person, based on Oneal having pushed store employees into a backroom or inventory room, ostensibly at gunpoint, during each of the three T- Mobile robberies. See id. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B). These changes resulted in a total 3 The probation department reached different Guidelines range calculations, based on application of several different enhancements, in the initial PSR, the first addendum to the PSR, the second addendum to the PSR, and the fourth addendum to the PSR. The fourth addendum to the PSR represented the probation department’s final calculation of Oneal’s Guidelines range. The probation department also prepared a third, fifth, and sixth addendum to the PSR, but these three addenda did not concern the applicable Guidelines range. 7 adjusted offense level of 27, which, combined with a criminal history category of VI, produced a sentencing range of 130 to 162 months. Oneal objected to the probation department’s application of the “dangerous weapon” and the “physical restraint” enhancements. 4 The probation department initially agreed with Oneal that it had erred in applying the physical restraint enhancement, based on its reading of our decision in United States v. Anglin, 169 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 1999), but later reincorporated the enhancement into its final calculation based on the district court’s application of it at the sentencing of one of Oneal’s codefendants. In a July 7, 2017 sentencing submission, the government “agree[d] that the Guidelines calculation set forth in the PSR,” including the dangerous weapon and physical restraint enhancements, was “correct,” characterizing the plea agreement’s differences from the PSR as a “mistake.” 5 Gov’t App. 31. The government adopted the PSR’s categorization of Oneal’s criminal history, 4Oneal also objected to the PSR’s criminal history calculation, but, as he has not renewed that argument on appeal, it is no longer at issue. 5 The government’s sentencing submission followed the first addendum to the PSR, which was dated May 25, 2017. The first addendum, like the fourth addendum, applied the physical restraint and dangerous weapon enhancements at issue in this appeal. 8 explaining that its estimate in the plea agreement had been based on an incomplete preliminary criminal history report. However, despite stating that the PSR’s Guidelines calculation was correct, the government emphasized that it “stands by the offense level calculation estimated in its plea agreement,” without the enhancements. Id. Accordingly, the government requested that the district court impose a sentence of between 92 to 115 months’ imprisonment, the Guidelines sentencing range corresponding to an offense level of 23, as calculated in the plea agreement, and a criminal history category of VI, as calculated by the probation department. The government argued that a sentence within this range would be sufficient to achieve the goals of sentencing.