Opinion ID: 198477
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ramirez's leniency in return for cooperation

Text: 39 Relying on United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir.1998) (Singleton I ), Hernandez argues that his conviction was improper because the government violated the anti-bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), by promising something of value to Ramirez, namely, a lenient sentence recommendation, in return for his testimony against Hernandez. 40 This argument was not raised in the district court, and is subject to review only for plain error. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). At a minimum, [a] court of appeals cannot correct an error pursuant to Rule 52(b) unless the error is clear under current law. Olano, 507 U.S. at 734. 41 At the time of Hernandez's conviction in November 1997, no court had yet found a promise of leniency by the government in return for cooperation to be a violation of the anti-bribery statute. Singleton I, issued the following year, was viewed as a significant departure from existing precedent, was roundly questioned, and was swiftly vacated and reversed en banc. See United States v. Singleton, 165 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir.1999) (en banc) (Singleton II ). Every circuit and virtually every court facing the issue has criticized Singleton I 's reasoning. See, e.g., United States v. Condon, 170 F.3d 687, 688-89 (7th Cir.1999) United States v. Ramsey, 165 F.3d 980, 986 (D.C.Cir.1999); United States v. Lowery, 166 F.3d 1119, 1123 (11th Cir.1999); but see United States v. Fraguela, 1998 WL 560352 (E.D.La. Aug.27, 1998), vacated on other grounds, 1998 WL 910219 (E.D.La. Oct.7, 1998). In light of the lack of any previous caselaw, and the overwhelming condemnation of Singleton I, it is beyond question that Singleton I's holding is not clear under current law. Consequently, the court did not commit plain error in admitting Ramirez's testimony.