Court Opinion

ID: 9483498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:22:10.502818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:39.440849
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The government agreed that it would not seek an upward departure from the offense level calculated under the Guidelines by the United States Probation Office. While the probation office’s first calculation of 41-51 months was in error and later amended to 27-33 months, the district court sustained a defense objection to one of the increases, the result of which was an adjusted offense level of 12 with a guideline range of 10-16 months. At that point, the offense level was not that calculated by the probation office, and this was what the United States Attorney had agreed was the condition for its agreement not to seek an upward departure.
The agreements in Santobello and McCray were similar, that if the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser-included offense in Santobello or to one count in McCray, the prosecutor would make no recommendation. These were simple, easily understood agreements that were breached. The agreement in this case was a more complex one and was conditioned upon the calculations of the United States Probation office. I cannot agree that it was hypertechnical and unreasonable to say that there was no breach of this agreement.
I would affirm the sentence imposed. I must add that under all of the circumstances in this case and the serious likelihood of killing one or more persons with *1185the pipe bomb, the departure was most restrained.