Court Opinion

ID: 9441918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:18:01.495178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:44.394832
License: Public Domain

MURGUTA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would reverse the district court’s decision denying Defendant Appellant Giannini’s motion to dismiss her indictment and remand for an evidentiary hearing. The plea agreement in this case is distinguishable from the agreement at issue in United States v. Clark, 218 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2000). Unlike the Clark agreement, Ms. Giannini’s agreement was oral and its terms were ambiguous. Specifically, the plea agreement was ambiguous on the issue of whether evidence uncovered in the investigation could be used as the basis for future charges in a separate proceeding. Such ambiguities are ordinarily read in the defendant’s favor. United States v. Transfiguracion, 442 F.3d 1222, 1228 (9th Cir.2006). I would, therefore, remand for an evidentiary hearing on the meaning of the 2005 agreement and the scope of the underlying investigation. I concur with the remainder of the majority’s decision.