Opinion ID: 2798921
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The August 14, 2013 rearraignment

Text: The district court began the August 14, 2013 rearraignment by informing Ushery that the government’s attorney and Ushery’s counsel had participated in a brief teleconference with the court “to discuss the potential of having [Ushery] enter a plea of guilty.” So that Ushery would No. 14-5046 United States v. Ushery Page 5 “receiv[e] all credits for acceptance of responsibility,” the court stated that August 14 was “like a drop-dead date” for pleading guilty. Ushery’s counsel replied by saying that Ushery would not be pleading guilty that day: “We’re not at this point prepared to enter that plea.” Just a few sentences later, Ushery’s counsel reiterated the point: “At this stage, [Ushery]’s not ready to enter a plea. As I said to him, I’ll be here on the 26th.” The district court, however, continued to engage with Ushery’s counsel, and soon with Ushery himself, about the latter’s decision regarding a potential guilty plea: [USHERY’S COUNSEL]: . . . [Ushery] does not want to waive his right to appeal. THE COURT: He doesn’t need to waive his right to appeal. [USHERY’S COUNSEL]: If I’m not mistaken, you’re indicating you’re satisfied with the plea agreement with the exception of paragraph 8. Is that accurate, Daniel? THE DEFENDANT: Somewhat. I mean, I feel like there’s too much time involved. But I would like to have a right to appeal, because I want my case [reviewed], because I feel like I’m being muscled into taking this time. THE COURT: You don’t need to be muscled to do anything, sir. You have the right to a jury trial. We have a jury trial on the 26th. THE DEFENDANT: It’s obvious I’m going to lose the jury trial. THE COURT: All I’ve done is review the record. I know what the criminal complaint and the affidavit says. I know generally what the facts are going to be, as presented to the jury. Guilt or innocence is one determination. Sentencing is another determination. Of course, what you do today or potentially do today impacts the sentence, and I’m sure [your attorney] has told you that. I am not going to allow you, nor is [your attorney] going to allow you to be muscled into doing anything that you don’t want to do yourself. Ushery continued to articulate his hesitation with pleading guilty: “I’ve been informing [the government] that I didn’t want to go to trial. I would just -- like 15 years is too stiff. . . . I’m trying to figure out a way to attack this career criminal [enhancement] without wasting nobody’s time.” The court responded by assuring Ushery that he could make whatever arguments he felt appropriate, while also acknowledging that the court would have to consider the Sentencing Guidelines, including possible career-offender status, in determining Ushery’s sentence. Ushery was again advised by the court that he could plead guilty, with or without a plea agreement, or instead go to trial. No. 14-5046 United States v. Ushery Page 6 But the district court also warned Ushery about the consequences of failing to plead that day: “[T]oday is the last date that I’m going to permit you to plead guilty if you want to plead guilty and receive that third point for acceptance of responsibility,” and explained the purpose behind the third point. The government’s attorney then interjected as follows: Judge, if our holdup [is that] Mr. Ushery would like to reserve the right to appeal his sentence, I’m willing to amend the plea agreement to allow him to appeal the length of his sentence. If that’s our holdup here and if that’s what Mr. Ushery was looking for in a plea agreement that he didn’t have before, I’m willing to do that. I know that’s not a negotiation with the Court, and the Court stays out of those things. But Mr. Ushery, I guess my point is if the agreement is acceptable except for the language in paragraph 8, then we can change that to say that with the exception that the defendant may appeal the length of sentence, period. That way, whatever sentence is imposed, Mr. Ushery will have the right to appeal. If that’s the thing holding Mr. Ushery up, I’m willing to make that concession, given the nature of the background of this case. The district court responded, “Very well,” before either Ushery or his counsel had said a word. After conferring with Ushery off the record, his counsel said to the court that Ushery “inten[ds] to enter a guilty plea, but he adamantly does not want to waive any appeal as it relates to the length of the sentence.” The government then agreed to delete paragraph 8, which contained the appeal waiver, from the plea agreement. With the agreement not yet finalized, the discussion next turned to forfeiture: [USHERY’S COUNSEL]: We’ll have to have a hearing on the forfeiture. We’re not talking forfeiture. THE COURT: One of the items of forfeiture is baseball cards. [USHERY’S COUNSEL]: That’s one of his gripes. I can understand that too. ... [GOVERNMENT’S COUNSEL]: If our holdups are the appeal and the baseball cards, those things aren’t sufficiently -- if he wants to enter a guilty plea, we’ll cross out paragraph 8 and we’ll return the baseball cards. THE COURT: All right. [USHERY’S COUNSEL]: He doesn’t want to waive his right to a forfeiture hearing on the money. I’m not trying to negotiate with the Court. I beg your pardon for not standing. No. 14-5046 United States v. Ushery Page 7 [GOVERNMENT’S COUNSEL]: We’ll litigate the forfeiture at the sentencing. [USHERY’S COUNSEL]: That’s what we’ll do, litigate it at the sentencing. THE DEFENDANT: I don’t know really what’s going on because I don’t have no -- [USHERY’S COUNSEL]: That’s what we intend to litigate, you got me? I think things are in order, Your Honor. The district court then asked the parties if they had reached a written agreement: “Do we have a written plea agreement that is commensurate with the agreement to adjudicate any disputes regarding the forfeiture allegation at sentencing and to strike the two boxes of baseball cards from the agreement to allow those to be returned to him?” The government answered that they did: “Judge, we’ll just remove paragraph[s] 6 and 8 from the plea proposal. Paragraph 6 is the one that says he agrees to forfeiture. Paragraph 8 is the one that waives his appellate rights. We can cross those two paragraphs off, and I think we can proceed.” Without a word from either Ushery or his counsel, the court said that it would look at the modified agreement: “All right. If you’d like to propose that, I’ll take a look at it.” Seeing that a plea agreement had been reached, the district court directed the clerk to place Ushery under oath and then proceeded to question him: THE COURT: Mr. Ushery, let me just start by confirming with you that you’ve had enough time to consult with your new lawyer . . . prior to today. Have you had enough time to talk to him about your options in this case? THE DEFENDANT: I mean, I really don’t feel like I have, but I guess. THE COURT: All right. What would more time do for you? THE DEFENDANT: I mean, I just, I’m really concerned about the career criminal [enhancement] because I don’t want to be sent away for the rest of my life. THE COURT: I recognize that, but would more time make it easier for you or more difficult? I’m trying to get to the bottom of your hesitation. The career offender provision of the guideline, I’ll go over it with you here in a little bit, but what I’m going to tell you now, what I told you earlier as you were sitting there, the Court will not muscle you, nor will your lawyer or the prosecutor, into doing something that you don’t want to do. Sometimes, individuals are given what’s called a Hobson’s choice, and that’s where all your choices are bad. This may be one of those times for you. No. 14-5046 United States v. Ushery Page 8 When the court again asked if Ushery had “had enough time to make that informed decision,” Ushery responded affirmatively: “Yes, sir.” Ushery ultimately pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the indictment—the distribution of crack cocaine—in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the other two counts were dismissed. The court accepted the plea, found Ushery guilty of the offense, vacated the August 26, 2013 trial date, scheduled a forfeiture hearing for December 3, 2013, and set the case for sentencing on December 17, 2013.