Court Opinion

ID: 2963931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:38.310763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:48.749320
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                For the First Circuit

                                                     
                                 ____________________
        No. 95-1351

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              MOISES LUIS VELEZ CARRERO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby,* U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Jorge E. Rivera-Ortiz on brief for appellant.
             _____________________
             Guillermo  Gil,  United  States   Attorney,  Nelson  Perez  Sosa,
             ______________                               ___________________
        Assistant  United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
                                               _______________________
        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                  February 27, 1996
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                            
        ____________________

             *Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.

                    CYR, Circuit  Judge.  Defendant-appellant  Moises Velez
                    CYR, Circuit  Judge
                         ______________

          Carrero  ("Velez) appeals  his  sentence on  the ground  that the

          government  breached  its  plea agreement  ("the  Agreement")  by

          failing to  recommend that there  be no adjustment pursuant  to  

          3B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.  We agree.

                    "Because plea bargaining  requires defendants to  waive

          fundamental constitutional  rights, we hold  prosecutors engaging

          in  plea bargaining  to `the  most meticulous  standards of  both

          promise and performance.'"  United States v. Clark, 55 F.3d 9, 12
                                      _____________    _____

          (1st  Cir.  1995) (citation  omitted).    In the  Agreement,  the

          government  promised "to recommend that no adjustment pursuant to

            3B1.1  of the sentencing  guidelines be made."   At sentencing,

          however, the government informed the court that it had "agreed to

          make no suggestion to the court  as to the role of the  defendant

          in  the offense."   What  the government  bargained to do  was to

          oppose any    3B1.1 adjustment.  What  it delivered was its  neu-
          ______

          trality.  This  is no mere terminological distinction.   The quid
                                                                       ____

          pro quo from the  defendant's point of view in this  case was the
          ___ ___

          prestige of  the government  and its  potential to  influence the
                                                _________

          district  court.   We  conclude  that  the  government's  conduct

          amounted to non-performance of the Agreement.

                    Santobello  v.  New  York, 404  U.S.  257,  262 (1971),
                    __________      _________

          requires  that the  breach of  a  plea agreement  be remedied  by

          either "specific performance  of the  agreement on  the plea,  in

          which case petitioner should be resentenced by a different judge,

          or .  . . the  opportunity to withdraw the  plea of guilty."   In

                                          2

          this case,  Velez seeks and we  grant the former  mode of relief.

          See United States v. Canada, 960 F.2d 263, 271 (1st Cir. 1992).
          ___ _____________    ______

                    Accordingly,  we vacate  the sentence  and remand  with
                                     ______                    ______

          orders that Velez  be resentenced by a different judge.  See Loc.
                                                                   ___

          R. 27.1.1

                              
          ____________________

               1In light of our decision  to vacate the sentence for breach
          of the Agreement, we need not address Velez's contention that the
          district court violated 18 U.S.C.    3553(c) by failing to recite
          its reasons for the sentence it imposed.

                                          3