Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. AGUILAR

May 2, 1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, against NICHOLAS AGUILAR, Defendant.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: JACK B. WEINSTEIN

 This case concerns one of a large class of federal criminal prosecutions to which the Guidelines do not, as a practical matter, apply -- those disposed of by plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C). For an earlier view of this case, see United States v. Mosquera, 813 F. Supp. 962 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (describing procedures for multiple prosecution).

 I. FACTS

 The defendant was indicted for conspiring to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). According to the government, he headed a 600-kilo distribution network.

 In accordance with a global plea agreement covering twelve of the sixteen defendants, Aguilar pled guilty to a single conspiracy count. The agreement stated:

 
Pursuant to Rule 11(e)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Office [of the United States Attorney] and the defendant agree that a specific sentence of 188 months is the appropriate disposition of [Aguilar's] case.

 Plea Agreement at 2 (August 13, 1993).

 Without this arrangement, the defendant's Guidelines sentence would have been 360 months in prison. In its presentence report, the Probation Department recommended that the court impose that term. Although noting that an agreement had been reached "pursuant to Rule 11(e)(1)(C)," Presentence Report at 3 (Oct. 6, 1993), the Department stated:

 
The Probation Department's independent investigation and guideline calculations yield a guideline imprisonment range of 360 months to life. Assuming the accuracy of our guideline computations, the Court can only impose a sentence of 188 months via a downward departure.. . . However, no downward departure factors are apparent to the Probation Department, and the adversaries have not proposed any [such] factors.

 Id. (emphasis added). Thus, in the view of the Probation Department, the agreement was unenforceable as incompatible with the Guidelines.

 II. LAW

 A. The Guidelines

 Support for the Probation Department's position -- that the sentence must fall within the otherwise-applicable Guidelines range -- is found in Guidelines § 6B1.2(c). That section provides:

 
In the case of a plea agreement that includes a specific sentence, the court may accept the agreement if the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.