Court Opinion

ID: 9489362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:13:52.480436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:29.363559
License: Public Domain

KEITH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
In this case, the majority admits that Nagi was sentenced under the wrong Guidelines but concludes that this was justified because there was some evidence, albeit inconclusive, that Nagi’s counsel agreed to the application of the October, 1988, Guidelines. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that allowing a defendant to be sentenced under the wrong Guidelines constitutes a fundamental miscarriage of justice which is contrary to both federal statutory law and Sixth Circuit case precedent.
The law is clear that the ex post facto clause of the Constitution “forbids the imposition of punishment more severe than the punishment assigned by law when the act to be punished occurred.” Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 30, 101 S.Ct. 960, 965, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). In other words, the Guidelines in effect at the time the criminal act occurred must be used for calculating a defendant’s sentence. Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 430-31, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 2451-52, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). I am not aware of an exception to this clause which allows the wrong Guidelines to be applied so long as the parties to the action are in agreement as to the appropriate range of sentence.
Indeed, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) requires a district court to select a sentence from within the applicable Guideline range unless there are specific aggravating circumstances for a departure. If such circumstances exist, the court must state the specific reasons for the departure. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). Our Court has adhered to this requirement even when the sentence imposed was within the range specified in the plea agreement between the parties. See United States v. Newsome, 894 F.2d 852, (6th Cir.1990) (holding that absent specific aggravating circumstances justifying departure, district court cannot exceed Sentencing Guideline range even though sentence was within range specified by plea agreement).
Here, the district court did not specify any reasons for departure because it was not aware that the wrong Guidelines were being used. Indeed, I can discern from the record that only one party, the United States Attorney, knew for certain that the wrong Guidelines were being used. As an officer of the court, the United States Attorney had a duty to inform the district judge that the correct Guidelines were not being used in calculating Nagi’s sentence. Although, the majority found that the sentencing error was not the “result of misconduct,” I believe that the United States Attorney’s failure to disclose all of the pertinent facts to the district court constituted grave misconduct.
Moreover, in my opinion, the majority’s argument that Nagi’s punishment was not more severe than the punishment assigned by law to all the crimes committed by Nagi is to no avail. For while it is true that if Nagi had not pled guilty he could have potentially faced a sentence of 30 years to life if he was convicted on all counts, we are prevented from drawing a negative inference from this possibility. Our Constitution demands that we presume Nagi was innocent on all counts to which he did not plead until he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to those charges. See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 1882, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975) (holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the *138prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute a crime charged); see also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1075, 25 L.Ed.2d 368. Thus, it is irrelevant that Nagi could have received a 30 year sentence if the case had gone to trial, the fact of the matter is that he did not go to trial. He pled guilty only to conducting a continuing criminal enterprise and was incorrectly sentenced under that charge.
In short, there is no way to get around the ex post facto error in this case. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1) requires a court of appeals to remand a case for further proceedings if a sentence was “imposed in violation of law or imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.” There is no doubt that Nagi was sentenced under the wrong guidelines. Thus, we are required, pursuant to federal statute and case precedent, to remand this case to the district court for resentencing using the correct Guideline range. If the United States Attorney refutes this range as being too low, then Nagi should be retried. The crucial point is that we simply should not allow a defendant to serve a sentence which is greater than the time allotted for the charge to which he or she has pled guilty. For this reason, I must dissent.