Court Opinion

ID: 9465206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:39:02.923542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:02.096252
License: Public Domain

SPRECHER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe that the plea agreement was complied with and adhered to by the government in every respect. The requirement of Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 499, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), is that “[t]his phase of the process of criminal justice, and the adjudicative element inherent in accepting a plea of guilty, must be attended by safeguards to insure the defendant what is reasonably due in the circumstances.” The defendant here arguably was given more than what was reasonably due in the circumstances.
The bargain was that “[t]he Government will recommend a maximum period of incarceration for defendant of three years . [but] [t]he Government’s recommendations as to incarceration may be reduced, based upon the extent of defendant’s truthful cooperation . . ., the condition of his health and other personal factors, and Antitrust Division guidelines which indicate that fines may be substituted for incarceration in appropriate circumstances.”
The sentencing hearing covered 78 pages of transcript, throughout which the prosecution reminded the trial judge of the terms of the plea agreement. The agreement obligated the government to recommend a maximum sentence of three years, but instead of recommending that maximum period of incarceration, the government actual*857ly recommended to the judge that he impose no more than three years, leaving to the judge the full discretion to impose any period less than three years while nevertheless complying with the prosecution recommendation.
The recommending language appears several times during the sentencing hearing:
“The plea agreements . . . result in the Antitrust Division recommendation of incarceration on the individuals for a period of time not to exceed 3 years . . ,”(Tr. 37).
“The government’s recommendation is an incarceration with a maximum of 3 years, limited to 3 years.” (Tr. 47). “[0]ur recommendation was incarceration, but the term to be determined by the Court. . . [W]e recommend that the maximum which the Court would determine would be 3 years because of the plea agreement, making that limitation. But, we also, of course requested the Court to consider the mitiga-tive factors of health and cooperation . . . .” (Tr. 68),
The cooperation or lack of it on the part of the defendant was explored in detail. The government explained the factors which influenced its recommendations of fines for the corporate defendants. Defendant’s counsel argued whatever mitiga-tive factors he desired at length.
It is clear to me, at least, that the government considered the factors mentioned in the plea agreement, found them not warranting a specific recommendation of incarceration less than three years, but nevertheless gave the defendant the benefit of the government’s recommendation of a maximum period of three years, so that the trial Court could, if he desired, impose a lesser sentence without violating the prosecutorial recommendation. This was more than the defendant bargained for.
I have no conception of what more can occur upon resentencing. The majority holds that “the Government’s evaluation of the specified mitigating factors must be set forth in the record at the time of sentencing.” This cannot be done with fully objective, computer-like precision. It is a subjective evaluation, which has already taken place before the court on the record and cannot be improved upon.
I would affirm the sentence imposed.