United States v. McCartney ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4453
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CLIFFORD THOMAS MCCARTNEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-04-71-7)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2005             Decided:   January 9, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
    Assistant Federal Public Defender, Windy C. Venable, Research and
    Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D.
    Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover
    Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Clifford Thomas McCartney appeals his conviction and
    sentence for two counts of bank robbery in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2113
    (a) (2000).        McCartney pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
    agreement, in which, in exchange for his plea, the government
    agreed to “recommend the low end of the applicable guideline
    range.”    On appeal, McCartney argues that the government breached
    the plea agreement by failing to comply with this term of the
    agreement.      We agree and therefore vacate McCartney’s sentence and
    remand.
    At sentencing, McCartney’s counsel argued in support of
    a sentence at the low end of the applicable advisory guideline
    range or lower.       When the court inquired of the government its
    position   on    sentencing,     the   Assistant      United   States    Attorney
    responded:      “Just that we’d ask that you stay within the advisory
    guideline range, Sir, but I don’t have an opinion as to whether it
    should be the low end or the high end at this point.”
    After McCartney’s counsel noted that the plea agreement
    required the government to recommend a sentence at the low end of
    the   applicable     guideline    range,       the   court   stated,    “Well,   I
    understand that and I will consider that [the AUSA] has done so
    after your having called this to her attention.”                        The court
    proceeded to sentence McCartney to 115 months, the top of the
    advisory guideline range of 92 to 115 months.
    - 2 -
    A plea agreement is breached when a government promise
    which induces the plea goes unfulfilled.               Santobello v. New York,
    
    404 U.S. 257
    , 262 (1971); United States v. Ringling, 
    988 F.2d 504
    ,
    506 (4th Cir. 1993).      By not recommending a sentence at the low end
    of   the   guidelines    range,    the    government     did    not   fulfill     its
    obligations    under    the     plea    agreement.      See    United    States    v.
    Peglera, 
    33 F.3d 412
    , 414 (4th Cir. 1994) (“Given the express
    inclusion of [a promise to recommend a lower sentence] in the plea
    agreement,    there     would    seem    to    be   little    question   that     the
    government’s [failure to do so] constituted a breach.”).
    After McCartney’s counsel informed the sentencing court
    of the government’s promise in the plea agreement, the court deemed
    the recommendation made.           This is not sufficient to excuse the
    government’s failure to comply with its promise made in the plea
    agreement.    See 
    id.
         “[R]esentencing is required under Santobello
    regardless of the judge’s awareness of the government's ‘real’
    position as indicated in the plea agreement.”                 
    Id.,
     citing United
    States v. Kurkculer, 
    918 F.2d 295
    , 302 (1st Cir. 1990).
    Case law requires us to remand this case to a different
    district judge for resentencing.              See Santobello, 
    404 U.S. at 263
    ;
    Peglera, 
    33 F.3d at 415
    .               Our decision in no way impugns the
    sentencing judge, who competently conducted the proceedings.
    We vacate the sentence and remand the case to a different
    district judge for resentencing.              Upon remand, the district court
    - 3 -
    shall resentence McCartney consistent with the requirements of this
    opinion.   We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    - 4 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4453

Judges: Williams, Michael, Hamilton

Filed Date: 1/9/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024