United States v. Joseph Parisien ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 30 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-30285
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00073-EFS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOSEPH M. PARISIEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 6, 2012
Seattle, Washington
Before: NOONAN, GRABER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Parisien pleaded guilty by plea agreement to distribution of
methamphetamine, distribution of crack cocaine, and conspiracy to possess with
the intent to distribute crack cocaine and methamphetamine. The district court
applied the career offender enhancement and sentenced Parisien to 162 months in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
prison. Parisien now appeals his sentence, arguing that because he entered into the
plea agreement unaware that the career offender enhancement could apply to him,
he is entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement according to the
original intention of the parties to eliminate a recidivist penalty.
We review the district court’s denial of a motion to compel specific
performance of a plea agreement for abuse of discretion. United States v. Anthony,
93 F.3d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1996). We review the due process claim de novo.
United States v. Morris, 633 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). On those
standards, we affirm the district court.
The district court neither abused its discretion nor deprived Parisien of due
process by denying his request for specific performance of the plea agreement.
The district court is not a party to the plea agreement and is not bound by it, as the
agreement clearly states. Parisien was not misinformed regarding his potential
sentence; the agreement states that the maximum term of imprisonment was life,
and Parisien’s ultimate sentence was within the parameters of the agreement. The
terms of the plea agreement demonstrate that the actual, express intention of the
parties was to have the court make the ultimate decision regarding a sentence that
could be as long as life in prison.
2
The district court properly interpreted and applied the plea agreement and
did not abuse its discretion in denying Parisien’s motion for specific performance
of the agreement.
AFFIRMED.
3