ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Public Defense Blogs -> Second Circuit Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Public Defense

: Second Circuit Blog

A Main Event

ADVERTISEMENTS
United States v. Green, No. 08-5426-cr (2d Cir. February 17, 2010) (Kearse, Winter, Pooler, CJJ)

In this case, the Court holds that a crack sentence that was the product of an imperfectly amended Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement could not be reduced under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Last year, in United States v. Main, 579 F.3d 200, 203 (2d Cir. 2009), the court held that a defendant sentenced under an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement was ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. See ?Out Of Range,? posted August 30, 2009. Here, the 11(c)(1)(C) agreement specified a 168-month sentence, to run concurrent with Green?s undischarged state sentence. However, by the time Green was to be sentenced, he had completed the other sentence. His attorney wrote to the government and proposed that instead the sentence be 145 months. The government agreed, although not in writing, and at sentencing, the judge agreed as well and imposed the 145-month term. Years later, but before Main was decided, when Green moved for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, the court denied the motion on the ground that the 145-month sentence was already ?effectively? in the lower range.

On Green?s appeal, the circuit held that Main applied, even though the sentence was different from that specified in the written 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, rejecting Green?s argument that the sentence was not imposed pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C). The court found that the parties? agreement on a 145-month sentence, although not reduced to writing, was still a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence, and hence was covered by Main.

The court thus affirmed even though, in one respect, the district court did not comply with Rule 11(c)(1)(C). The rule requires that the agreement be disclosed when the plea is offered, and here the amended agreement was not. In order to accomplish this, the district court would have had to let Green withdraw his plea and reenter it. The Rule 11 error was harmless, however, since the amended agreement was disclosed in open court, and the record was clear Green understood the new terms.

Full post as published by Second Circuit Blog on March 13, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0134 secs (new cache)