Court Opinion

ID: 9499089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:37:14.533725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:16.317340
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The court holds that the government breached its plea agreement with Mr. Scott by discussing two sentencing enhancements after being specifically directed to do so by the district court. The court reasons that because no new facts were developed after the plea, the government was precluded from arguing any additional positions in favor of enhancements. Prop. Op. at 7. Because this reasoning is supported by neither the applicable law nor the record, I respectfully dissent.

Background

Context is necessary to understand what transpired in this case, as well as why the district court felt that a stiff sentence was appropriate. In 2002, federal law enforcement authorities began an investigation into a ring of child prostitution in various areas of the country, including central Oklahoma. One of the individuals apprehended in this operation was Mr. Scott, who was a pimp operating primarily out of Oklahoma City. His operation utilized both adult and juvenile prostitutes, and he also operated in Amarillo, Texas. Aplt.App. at 106-08.
According to the investigation, a 13 year old girl, identified as S.H. or “Strawberry,” ran away from her home in approximately *1193January 2003. While walking in Oklahoma City, S.H. was approached by a vehicle driven by Mr. Scott. An unidentified female, known as “Obsession,” who was also Mr. Scott’s most experienced prostitute, was also in the vehicle. Mr. Scott and Obsession asked S.H. whether she drank alcohol and smoked marijuana. After S.H. responded in the affirmative, they showed her a bottle of alcohol that was in the vehicle. Mr. Scott asked S.H. if she was interested in living “a better life,” and promised her “nice clothes and money in [her] pocket.” Mr. Scott told S.H. that they were going to go to a nearby apartment to “party.” Id. at 98. At some point, S.H. apparently informed Mr. Scott and Obsession that she was 13 years old.1
Despite telling S.H. that they were going to a party in Oklahoma City, Mr. Scott drove the vehicle onto Interstate 40 in the direction of Amarillo, Texas. By Mr. Scott’s own admission, S.H. did not know that they were going to Texas. Id. at 97-99. Apparently, S.H. became nervous about the change in circumstances, but Mr. Scott calmed her by telling her they were going to Amarillo to visit Obsession’s mother. Once they arrived, though, Mr. Scott informed them that they were going to be stationed as prostitutes at a truck stop. Because Obsession was the most experienced, Mr. Scott gave her money and instructed her to help S.H. procure some appropriate clothing. Id. at 108.
Upon arrival, Mr. Scott turned the two females out to start working at truck stops. S.H. worked each day from around 9:00 in the evening until 3:00 the following morning.2 S.H. was instructed that she must return each night with $500 to $1000 — all given to Mr. Scott — in order to keep “her pimp happy.”3 After a week, the three returned to Oklahoma City, whereupon Mr. Scott commanded that S.H. start working again. S.H. left Mr. Scott’s employ that night.
On May 5, 2004, Mr. Scott was indicted on two counts. On June 1, 2004, a four count superseding indictment charged Mr. Scott with: (1) transportation of an adult, identified as K.S., in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421; (2) transportation of a juvenile, S.H., in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); (3) trafficking of a juvenile, S.H., in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a); and (4) trafficking of a juvenile, identified as B.U., in interstate commerce in violation of § 1591(a). On August 9, 2004, before the Supreme Court’s issuance of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), Mr. Scott pled guilty to count 2.
The PSR calculated Mr. Scott’s total offense level at 23, with a criminal history category of I. Aplt.App. at 116. This produced a sentencing range of 46 to 57 months. The statutory maximum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) as of the time of Mr. Scott’s conviction was 15 years. After *1194Booker was issued, the district court held a sentencing hearing, which included the taking of evidence. The district court determined that two additional enhancements to Mr. Scott’s sentencing guideline calculation were proper. The court found that S.H. was an unusually vulnerable victim, and as such, under § 3Al.l(b)(l), Mr. Scott should receive a two-level enhancement. Id. at 253-58. Next, the court determined that Mr. Scott played a leadership role in the crime, and as such, under § 3Bl.l(e), Mr. Scott should receive another two-level enhancement. Id. at 258-60. Following these enhancements, Mr. Scott’s guideline range was 70 to 87 months. Id. at 261. The government’s motion for an upward departure based upon abduction of the victim, U.S.S.G. § 5K2.4, was denied. Aplt.App. at 252. Given a now-discretionary guidelines system, the district court sentenced Mr. Scott to 120 months. The district court remarked that the guidelines were a moderating factor, without them the court would have sentenced Mr. Scott to the statutory maximum.

Analysis

Mr. Scott contends that the government breached the plea agreement by supporting the two enhancements discussed above and moving for an upward departure. When the government obtains a guilty plea predicated in any significant degree on an agreement with the prosecutor, that agreement must be fulfilled in order to maintain the integrity of the plea. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). But a promise to recommend a particular sentence is not a promise that the prosecutor will stand mute when the district court seeks factual information.4 See United States v. Hand, 913 F.2d 854, 856 (10th Cir.1990); see also United States v. Allen, 434 F.3d 1166, 1175 (9th Cir.2006).
In this circuit, we apply a two-part analysis in order to determine whether the government has breached the plea agreement: (1) we examine the nature of the promise made by the government; and (2) we assess this promise against the backdrop of the defendant’s reasonable understanding of that promise at the time that the plea was entered. United States v. Brye, 146 F.3d 1207, 1210 (10th Cir.1998). Because general contract principles inform the inquiry, we consider the express terms of the agreement and we construe any ambiguities therein against the drafter— i.e., the government. Id.
The government’s broadest argument— that the plea agreement is not exhaustive and thus it can still argue for various enhancements and an upward departure— appears rather disingenuous. But despite this panel’s rejection of that argument, I would hold that no breach of the agreement occurred in this case.5 Quite simply, *1195the district court, upon review of the plea agreement and after conducting a plea hearing, ordered the parties to submit memoranda on the potential applicability of these two sentencing enhancements. Next, the district court asked the prosecution to examine Agent Beaver as to the factual background of this case as it related to the two enhancements. The government had no alternative but to fulfill its duty to insure that the sentencing court had complete and accurate information concerning the defendant to enable the imposition of an appropriate sentence. See United States v. Block, 660 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir.1981). By entering into a plea agreement, the government did not agree to refuse to truthfully respond to the district court’s requests for factual information. Allen, 434 F.3d at 1175; United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.2000) (“[A] plea agreement does not bar the government from honestly answering the district court’s questions. To the contrary, honest response of the government to direct judicial inquiry is a prosecutor’s professional obligation that cannot be barred, eroded or impaired by a plea agreement.”).
The court’s opinion contends that the pertinent cases involve prosecutors that “scrupulously abided by the terms of the plea agreement” and therefore, Mr. Scott’s ease is quite different. Prop. Op. at 9. All of these cases involve instances where the prosecutor either cross-examined the defendant or otherwise presented evidence or argument at sentencing, and on appeal the defendant made serious arguments that the plea agreement was breached. In holding that the government had not breached the plea agreement, these courts looked to what the plea agreement contained and what it did not. The degree of latitude afforded must have some reference to the actual agreement. Here, the prosecution had not agreed to recommend a certain base offense level, Maldonado, 215 F.3d at 1048, or to jointly recommend a total offense level, Allen, 434 F.3d at 1166, or to recommend a downward adjustment that later became an issue in the case, Hand, 913 F.2d at 855, or to take no position on whether a particular sentencing enhancement should be applied, Ahn, 231 F.3d at 30. Regardless, in all of these cases, the courts recognized the prosecutor’s responsibility to provide the court with truthful and accurate information so as arrive at the correct sentence. That premise certainly applies here where the government was requested by the court to comment on the sentencing enhancements contemplated by the court.
The government did provide a court-requested sentencing memorandum favoring the two enhancements in approximately two of the nine pages provided to the court. This does not qualify as the sort of zealous advocacy found impermissible in other contexts. Indeed, the government’s sentencing memorandum served a useful purpose, not prohibited by the plea agreement — the provision of court-ordered legal *1196and factual information — which is an essential function of the government at sentencing. See United States v. Riera, 298 F.3d 128, 135 (2nd Cir.2002). On the other hand, the government’s request in the sentencing memorandum for an upward departure pushes the envelope, but regardless, the court denied the motion for upward departure and as a result, the defendant sustained no injury. See United States v. Belt, 89 F.3d 710, 713 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding breach harmless where remand would be fruitless); United States v. Easterling, 921 F.2d 1073, 1080 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding that “any breach by the Government that may have occurred is immaterial in light of the district court’s handling of the matter”).
While a unilateral attempt by a prosecutor to influence the district court into imposing a higher sentence than that expressly contemplated by the plea agreement could potentially violate the agreement, that simply was not the case here. To the contrary, the government responded to the district court’s specific request for information relevant to the potential sentencing enhancements and did not argue for either enhancement of its own accord. Mr. Scott cannot point to anything in the plea agreement that bars the government from responding to the court here, because there is no such provision. Indeed, “where' — as here — the Government incorporates into the plea agreement an integration clause expressly disavowing the existence of any understandings other than those set forth in the plea agreement, a defendant may not rely on a purported implicit understanding in order to demonstrate that the Government is in breach.” United States v. Lenoci, 377 F.3d 246, 258 (2nd Cir.2004) (citing In re Altro, 180 F.3d 372, 376 (2d. Cir.1999)).
This court’s emphasis on the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the plea agreement is incomplete. Prop. Op. at 5. That understanding must be informed by the terms of the government’s agreement. The court’s interpretation of that agreement is unreasonable, because, despite its insinuation to the contrary, the defendant’s understanding of the agreement’s terms is not dispositive for our purposes. The plea agreement lacks any language related to these particular sentencing enhancements, lacks any language forbidding the prosecutor from responding to requests by the district court, and it similarly lacks any language prohibiting the presentation of evidence when it is requested. Aplt.App. at 76 (“The United States reserves the right to inform the Probation Office and the Court of ... the nature and extent of defendant’s activities with respect to this case....”); Id. at 67-77; See Allen, 434 F.3d at 1175 (noting that, as was the case here, the “plea agreement contained no provision forbidding the prosecutor to respond to requests by the district court or to present evidence when specifically requested to do so [and] there [is no] suggestion at all in this record that the prosecutor was in any way responsible for encouraging the probation officer to include a higher offense level recommendation than was contained in the plea agreement, or that she induced the district court to pursue that recommendation.”); Hand, 913 F.2d at 856-57; United States v. Ahn, 231 F.3d 26, 38 (D.C.Cir.2000) (noting that the prosecutor’s questions for the witness only provided the factual material for the district court to apply an enhancement).
The plea agreement says absolutely nothing about responses to court-ordered advocacy related to the potential relevance of these sentencing enhancements. As the cases demonstrate, the terms of plea agreements vary from specific sentences, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C), to recommendations concerning offense levels and enhancements. This court should not re*1197make the parties’ agreement based upon unexpressed subjective intentions. Moreover, the district court is not bound by the plea agreement, and as such, it is surely entitled to order additional briefing on materials it deems relevant to the sentence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3); Aplt.App. at 70, 76.

. It is unclear whether Mr. Scott was informed of it at the time he enticed S.H. into the vehicle, but FBI Special Agent Beaver testified at the sentencing hearing that S.H. was involved in intravenous drug use, possibly injecting methamphetamine. See Aplt. App. at 183-84, 243. Furthermore, S.H. had psychological and mental problems, which included cutting herself and other forms of self-mutilation. Id.

. S.H. was instructed to, and did, charge the men $40.00 for oral sex, $60.00 for sexual intercourse, and $90.00 for both. Aplt.App. at 108.

. A prostitute is required to surrender all of the money earned; if she does not, she is guilty of "cuffing.” Further, the prostitute must unquestionably obey her pimp and show him respect; if she does not, she is "out of pocket.” Pipkins, 378 F.3d at 1286.

. The premise of the court's opinion, that the district court sought only legal argument, and not factual information, is not only counter-intuitive (given the largely factual nature of enhancements), but also completely contrary to the district court's briefing order:
Both of the possible adjustments which are discussed above involve factual matters which may not be fully discussed in the [PSR] and which may be controverted to some degree. At sentencing, the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to present any evidence they may have, not inconsistent with the factual portions of the [PSR] as to which no objections were lodged, which may have a bearing upon the court's determinations as to the applicability of the adjustments discussed above.
Aplt.App. 124.

. The plea agreement provides:
7. Based upon the information that is known to the parties on the date that this agreement is executed, die positions they expect to take at sentencing widi respect to the United States Sentencing Guidelines will include the following:
(A) The offense occurred before April 30, 2003.
*1195(B) The offense involved a commercial sex act and the use of coercion.
(C) The offense involved a victim who had attained the age of twelve (12) but had not attained the age of sixteen (16).
(D) The defendant should receive a 2-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to USSG § 3El.l(a), if he commits no further crimes and fully complies will all of the other terms of this agreement.
The parties have entered into this plea agreement under the provisions of Rule 11(c)(1)(B). Defendant acknowledges and understands that the Court is not bound by, nor obligated to accept, these stipulations, agreements, or recommendations of the United States or defendant.
Aplt.App. at 69-70 (emphasis supplied).