Court Opinion

ID: 9915220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 21:01:08.573943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:34.105804
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                               File Name: 24a0007n.06

                                         No. 22-4083

                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                               Jan 04, 2024
                                                       )                KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       )
        Plaintiff-Appellee,                            )
                                                             ON APPEAL FROM THE
                                                       )
 v.                                                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT
                                                       )
                                                             COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
                                                       )
 ANDRE HARGROVE,                                             DISTRICT OF OHIO
                                                       )
        Defendant-Appellant.                           )
                                                                                   OPINION
                                                       )

Before: McKEAGUE, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

       LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Andre Hargrove pleaded guilty to two drug charges. The district

court sentenced him to 80 months’ imprisonment. Hargrove appeals. Seeing no error, we

AFFIRM.

                                              I.

       In 2020 and 2021, Andre Hargrove helped to ship packages of drugs through the postal

system. In early 2021, United States Postal Service inspectors seized two parcels of drugs, one

containing methamphetamine and the other containing fentanyl, and tied them to Hargrove. A

grand jury indicted Hargrove for attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine

and fentanyl. Hargrove pleaded guilty to both counts, and as part of the plea agreement, the

government agreed to recommend a base offense level of 30.

       The PSR calculated Hargrove’s base offense level at 34. At the sentencing hearing, the

district court adopted that base offense level, readjusted the Guidelines range, and sentenced

Hargrove below the Guidelines range to 80 months’ imprisonment. Hargrove appeals.
No. 22-4083, United States v. Hargrove

                                                II.

       Hargrove argues that the district court should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea

after the court rejected the plea agreement’s terms by calculating a higher base offense level than

agreed to by the parties.1 Because he did not raise this argument in the district court, we review

for plain error. See United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

       Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) catalogs three types of plea agreements. The

parties may agree that the government will:

               (A) not bring, or will move to dismiss, other charges;

               (B) recommend, or agree not to oppose the defendant’s request, that a
       particular sentence or sentencing range is appropriate or that a particular provision
       of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does
       not apply (such a recommendation or request does not bind the court); or

               (C) agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate
       disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines,
       or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a
       recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea
       agreement).

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(A)–(C).

       The “type” of plea agreement (A, B, or C) determines the court’s duty. See United States

v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670, 675 (1997). In a “type C” agreement, the government “agrees that the

defendant should receive a specific sentence” or sentencing range. Id. This type of agreement

“binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). But if

the court rejects a type C agreement, the court must “inform the parties” of the rejection; “advise

1
 Hargrove also argues that his “appellate waiver was invalidated because the [district] court did
not fully comply with” Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Appellant Br. at 14. We need not
decide that question because the government concedes that the plea agreement’s appellate waiver
doesn’t bar Hargrove’s challenge on appeal. See Appellee Br. at 5 n.1; United States v. Jones,
417 F.3d 547, 549 (6th Cir. 2005).
                                                -2-
No. 22-4083, United States v. Hargrove

the defendant personally that the court is not required to follow the plea agreement and give the

defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea”; and “advise the defendant personally that if the

plea is not withdrawn, the court may dispose of the case less favorably toward the defendant than

the plea agreement contemplated.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5)(A)–(C). In a “type B” agreement,

the government agrees only to “recommend, or agree not to oppose the defendant’s request, that a

particular sentence or sentencing range is appropriate.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B). Such an

agreement “does not bind the court,” id., and the defendant has no right to withdraw his plea in the

event of a rejection, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5).

       Hargrove contends that the district court violated Rule 11(c)(5) by not allowing him to

withdraw his plea once the court arrived at a base offense level inconsistent with the plea

agreement. This is a curious argument because Hargrove himself acknowledges that the plea

agreement says that it was made “[p]ursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(b)” and provides that it “is not

binding upon on the court.” Appellant Br. at 23. Coupled with his acknowledgment that a court

must follow the procedures of Rule 11(c)(5) when rejecting an agreement made under Rule

11(c)(1)(C), and his lack of a similar claim regarding Rule 11(c)(1)(B), Hargrove’s brief seems to

rebut his only argument.

       The record confirms this rebuttal. The plea agreement states that the parties reached an

agreement “[p]ursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” And the

agreement contains a paragraph entitled, “Sentencing Recommendations Not Binding on the

Court,” in which Hargrove acknowledged “that the recommendations of the parties will not be

binding upon the Court, [and] that the Court alone will decide the advisory guideline range . . . and

what sentence to impose.” Further, Hargrove acknowledged “that once the Court has accepted

Defendant’s guilty plea, Defendant will not have the right to withdraw such a plea if the Court

                                                 -3-
No. 22-4083, United States v. Hargrove

does not accept any sentencing recommendations made on Defendant’s behalf or if Defendant is

otherwise dissatisfied with the sentence.” By its plain terms, then, the plea agreement was a “type

B” agreement, made under Rule 11(c)(1)(B). Such an agreement neither binds the court nor

requires that the defendant be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea should the agreement’s

sentencing recommendations be rejected.

       There was one moment of confusion, either during the sentencing hearing itself or in the

transcription of it, that warrants brief discussion. The transcript records the government as saying

that this was a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea in response to a somewhat confusing question from the court.

In this court, the government says that this “appears to be a typographical error in the transcript.”

Appellee Br. at 8. Hargrove doesn’t dispute that characterization. And the rest of the sentencing

hearing shows that the district court correctly understood that the plea agreement was made under

Rule 11(c)(1)(B). Without objection from Hargrove, the court explained its recollection that the

agreement left it to the court to calculate the Guidelines range, regardless of the range the parties

had negotiated in the agreement.

       The record reveals that the district court properly understood the type of plea agreement

before it. Because the parties had negotiated a “type B” agreement, see Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(c)(1)(B), the court had no obligation to allow Hargrove to withdraw his plea on the ground that

the court had calculated a different base offense level than the parties had negotiated. The district

court did not err, much less plainly so.

                                               ***

       We AFFIRM.

                                                 -4-