Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    United States v. Velez Carrero, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Moises Velez Carrero appealed his sentence, arguing that the government breached their plea agreement by failing to recommend no adjustment under USSG §3B1.1. 2) Under the plea agreement, the government promised to recommend no adjustment under §3B1.1, but at sentencing only stated it would not suggest Velez's role and would not oppose an adjustment. 3) The court found this to be a breach, as the government failed to uphold its end of the bargain. It vacated Velez's sentence and remanded for resentencing by a different judge.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Velez Carrero, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    33 views8 pages
    1) Moises Velez Carrero appealed his sentence, arguing that the government breached their plea agreement by failing to recommend no adjustment under USSG §3B1.1. 2) Under the plea agreement, the government promised to recommend no adjustment under §3B1.1, but at sentencing only stated it would not suggest Velez's role and would not oppose an adjustment. 3) The court found this to be a breach, as the government failed to uphold its end of the bargain. It vacated Velez's sentence and remanded for resentencing by a different judge.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-02-27 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 95-1351

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Moises Velez Carrero appealed his sentence, arguing that the government breached their plea agreement by failing to recommend no adjustment under USSG §3B1.1. 2) Under the plea agreement, the government promised to recommend no adjustment under §3B1.1, but at sentencing only stated it would not suggest Velez's role and would not oppose an adjustment. 3) The court found this to be a breach, as the government failed to uphold its end of the bargain. It vacated Velez's sentence and remanded for resentencing by a different judge.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    33 views8 pages

    United States v. Velez Carrero, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Moises Velez Carrero appealed his sentence, arguing that the government breached their plea agreement by failing to recommend no adjustment under USSG §3B1.1. 2) Under the plea agreement, the government promised to recommend no adjustment under §3B1.1, but at sentencing only stated it would not suggest Velez's role and would not oppose an adjustment. 3) The court found this to be a breach, as the government failed to uphold its end of the bargain. It vacated Velez's sentence and remanded for resentencing by a different judge.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 8

    USCA1 Opinion

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    For the First Circuit

    ____________________
    No. 95-1351

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    Appellee,

    v.

    MOISES LUIS VELEZ CARRERO,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

    [Hon. D. Brock Hornby,* U.S. District Judge]


    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Selya, Cyr and Lynch,

    Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    Jorge E. Rivera-Ortiz on brief for appellant.


    _____________________
    Guillermo Gil,
    ______________
    Assistant

    United

    States

    Attorney,

    Nelson Perez So
    _________________

    United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Sen


    _______________________

    Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.

    ____________________

    February 27, 1996


    ____________________

    ____________________

    *Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.

    CYR, Circuit Judge.


    CYR, Circuit Judge
    ______________

    Carrero

    ("Velez) appeals

    its

    Defendant-appellant

    his

    sentence on

    government

    breached

    plea agreement

    failing to

    recommend that there

    the ground

    ("the

    fundamental constitutional

    in

    plea bargaining

    to `the

    promise and performance.'"

    (1st

    Cir.

    1995) (citation

    that the

    Agreement")

    be no adjustment pursuant

    3B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

    "Because plea bargaining

    Moises Velez

    most meticulous

    to

    We agree.

    requires defendants to

    rights, we hold

    by

    waive

    prosecutors engaging

    standards of

    both

    United States v. Clark, 55 F.3d 9, 12


    _____________
    _____

    omitted).

    In the

    Agreement,

    the

    government

    promised "to recommend that no adjustment pursuant to

    3B1.1

    guidelines be made."

    of the sentencing

    At sentencing,

    however, the government informed the court that it had "agreed to

    make no suggestion to the court

    in

    the offense."

    oppose any
    ______

    trality.

    the government

    3B1.1 adjustment.

    This

    prestige of

    What

    defendant

    bargained to do

    defendant's point of view in this

    the government

    court.

    We

    and its

    conclude

    that

    was to

    it delivered was its

    is no mere terminological distinction.

    pro quo from the


    ___ ___

    district

    What

    as to the role of the

    potential to
    _________

    the

    neu-

    The quid
    ____

    case was the

    influence the

    government's

    conduct

    amounted to non-performance of the Agreement.

    Santobello
    __________

    requires

    that the

    v.

    New York, 404


    _________

    breach of

    either "specific performance

    U.S.

    257,

    plea agreement

    of the

    agreement on

    262 (1971),

    be remedied

    by

    the plea,

    in

    which case petitioner should be resentenced by a different judge,

    or .

    . . the

    opportunity to withdraw the

    plea of guilty."

    In

    this case,

    Velez seeks and we

    grant the former

    mode of relief.

    See United States v. Canada, 960 F.2d 263, 271 (1st Cir. 1992).
    ___ _____________
    ______

    Accordingly,

    orders that Velez

    R. 27.1.1

    we vacate
    ______

    the sentence

    and remand
    ______

    be resentenced by a different judge.

    with

    See Loc.
    ___

    ____________________

    1In light of our decision

    to vacate the sentence for breach

    of the Agreement, we need not address Velez's contention that the


    district court violated 18 U.S.C.

    3553(c) by failing to recite

    its reasons for the sentence it imposed.

    You might also like