UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 17-cr-163-JD Opinion No. 2019 DNH 074 Louis Gardner
O R D E R
Louis Gardner moves to withdraw his guilty pleas to Counts
6, 7, and 8 of the indictment. He contends that he should be
permitted to withdraw his pleas because the government was
allowed to withdraw from the plea agreement after he breached
the agreement by engaging in criminal activity. The government
objects.
Background
In a written plea agreement, Gardner agreed to plead guilty
to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C
§ 922(g) (Count 6); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 7); and
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a
controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vi), and
846 (Count 8). In the agreement, the parties stipulated that
Gardner would be sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. In § 12 of the plea agreement, however, Gardner agreed that he would not
engage in any criminal activity. If he did, “the United States
may consider such conduct to be a breach of the Plea Agreement
and may withdraw therefrom.” Doc. no. 72 at 11.
On October 30, 2018, the court accepted Gardner’s guilty
pleas on Counts 6, 7, and 8. After the court accepted the
pleas, but before sentencing, Gardner engaged in criminal
activity by committing the offense of assault by prisoner.
Based on that finding, and pursuant to § 12 of the agreement,
the court granted the government’s motion to withdraw from the
plea agreement. Doc. no. 108.
Gardner moves to withdraw his guilty pleas under Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2). The court held a hearing
on the motion on April 10, 2019.
Discussion
Gardner argues that a “fair and just” reason exists to
allow him to withdraw from his guilty pleas under Rule
11(d)(2)(B). Alternatively, he argues that, because the court
“rejected” the plea agreement, he can withdraw under § 6 of the
plea agreement and Rule 11(d)(2)(A), which provide for
withdrawal of a guilty plea as a matter of right under those
circumstances. Gardner also contends that § 17 of the plea
2 agreement permits him to withdraw from his guilty pleas. The
government responds that no “fair and just” reason exists and
that the court did not reject the plea agreement.
A. “Fair and Just” Reason for Requesting Withdrawal
“A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty . . . after the
court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if . . .
the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the
withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2). The defendant bears
the burden to establish a fair and just reason. United States
v. Dunfee, 821 F.3d 120, 127 (1st Cir. 2016). In examining
whether a fair and just reason exists, the court looks to
“whether the plea was voluntary, intelligent, knowing and in
compliance with Rule 11; the strength of the reasons offered in
support of the motion [to withdraw]; whether there is a serious
claim of actual innocence; the timing of the motion; and any
prejudice to the government if the withdrawal is allowed.” Id.
(alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Isom, 580
F.3d 43, 52 (1st Cir. 2009)).
Gardner argues that a fair and just reason exists because
he “heavily relied upon the stipulation entered into by the
parties.” Doc. no. 111 at 4. “In exchange for this reliance,”
Gardner contends, he forwent filing “motions to suppress
3 evidence relative to the moto[r] vehicle stop in this case” and
he forwent “raising an entrapment defense on the use and
possession of the firearm in this case . . . .” Id.
Gardner offers no argument that his pleas were made
involuntarily, unknowingly, or unintelligently and does not make
any claim of innocence. Gardner’s two theories – entrapment and
suppression of evidence – are not premised on his actual
innocence of the crimes. See United States v. Torres-Rosa, 209
F.3d 4, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2000) (“The absence of an assertion of
innocence counsels against allowing the plea to be withdrawn.”);
United States v. Sanchez-Barreto, 93 F.3d 17, 24 (1st Cir. 1996)
(“The district court need not credit bare protestations of legal
innocence.”).1 Indeed, at the plea colloquy, Gardner admitted
his guilt.
Gardner’s “reliance” on the beneficial terms of the plea
agreement which no longer apply is not a “fair and just” reason
to permit him to withdraw. See United States v. Muriel, 111
F.3d 975, 978 (1st Cir. 1997) (“[W]hen Muriel concluded that
1 It is unclear on what basis Gardner would assert entrapment or that evidence should be suppressed. Gardner did not elaborate on his entrapment theory. In the “Offense Conduct” section of the plea agreement admitted to by Gardner at the plea colloquy, it states that “the defendant waived his Miranda rights” and admitted to officers after his arrest that he traveled to Massachusetts to buy drugs.
4 circumstances had changed such that a potential motion to
suppress seemed to be a better strategy than his plea bargain,
he decided that withdrawal of his plea was in order. But . . .
second thoughts do not constitute a plausible reason for
withdrawal.”). Gardner’s loss of the benefit of the stipulated
sentence is a consequence of his own actions, and the
government’s withdrawal from the plea agreement because of
Gardner’s breach is not a sufficient reason to permit him to
withdraw his guilty pleas. See United States v. Tilley, 964
F.2d 66, 72 (1st Cir. 1992) (finding that district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw
guilty plea after he violated plea agreement by committing
perjury); see also United States v. Robinson, 587 F.3d 1122,
1125 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“Guilty pleas are distinct from plea
agreements.”) (citing United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670, 677-
78 (1997)). Finally, although Gardner filed his motion soon
after the court granted the government’s motion to withdraw from
the plea agreement, any lack of prejudice to the government does
not warrant granting the motion. See United States v. Ramos,
810 F.2d 308, 313 (1st Cir. 1987) (“Only after a defendant has
brought forward a ‘fair and just’ reason, is the government
compelled to demonstrate prejudice . . . .”); Nunez Cordero v.
United States, 533 F.2d 723, 725 (1st Cir. 1976) (affirming
5 district court’s finding that no fair and just reason to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 17-cr-163-JD Opinion No. 2019 DNH 074 Louis Gardner
O R D E R
Louis Gardner moves to withdraw his guilty pleas to Counts
6, 7, and 8 of the indictment. He contends that he should be
permitted to withdraw his pleas because the government was
allowed to withdraw from the plea agreement after he breached
the agreement by engaging in criminal activity. The government
objects.
Background
In a written plea agreement, Gardner agreed to plead guilty
to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C
§ 922(g) (Count 6); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 7); and
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a
controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vi), and
846 (Count 8). In the agreement, the parties stipulated that
Gardner would be sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. In § 12 of the plea agreement, however, Gardner agreed that he would not
engage in any criminal activity. If he did, “the United States
may consider such conduct to be a breach of the Plea Agreement
and may withdraw therefrom.” Doc. no. 72 at 11.
On October 30, 2018, the court accepted Gardner’s guilty
pleas on Counts 6, 7, and 8. After the court accepted the
pleas, but before sentencing, Gardner engaged in criminal
activity by committing the offense of assault by prisoner.
Based on that finding, and pursuant to § 12 of the agreement,
the court granted the government’s motion to withdraw from the
plea agreement. Doc. no. 108.
Gardner moves to withdraw his guilty pleas under Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2). The court held a hearing
on the motion on April 10, 2019.
Discussion
Gardner argues that a “fair and just” reason exists to
allow him to withdraw from his guilty pleas under Rule
11(d)(2)(B). Alternatively, he argues that, because the court
“rejected” the plea agreement, he can withdraw under § 6 of the
plea agreement and Rule 11(d)(2)(A), which provide for
withdrawal of a guilty plea as a matter of right under those
circumstances. Gardner also contends that § 17 of the plea
2 agreement permits him to withdraw from his guilty pleas. The
government responds that no “fair and just” reason exists and
that the court did not reject the plea agreement.
A. “Fair and Just” Reason for Requesting Withdrawal
“A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty . . . after the
court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if . . .
the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the
withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2). The defendant bears
the burden to establish a fair and just reason. United States
v. Dunfee, 821 F.3d 120, 127 (1st Cir. 2016). In examining
whether a fair and just reason exists, the court looks to
“whether the plea was voluntary, intelligent, knowing and in
compliance with Rule 11; the strength of the reasons offered in
support of the motion [to withdraw]; whether there is a serious
claim of actual innocence; the timing of the motion; and any
prejudice to the government if the withdrawal is allowed.” Id.
(alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Isom, 580
F.3d 43, 52 (1st Cir. 2009)).
Gardner argues that a fair and just reason exists because
he “heavily relied upon the stipulation entered into by the
parties.” Doc. no. 111 at 4. “In exchange for this reliance,”
Gardner contends, he forwent filing “motions to suppress
3 evidence relative to the moto[r] vehicle stop in this case” and
he forwent “raising an entrapment defense on the use and
possession of the firearm in this case . . . .” Id.
Gardner offers no argument that his pleas were made
involuntarily, unknowingly, or unintelligently and does not make
any claim of innocence. Gardner’s two theories – entrapment and
suppression of evidence – are not premised on his actual
innocence of the crimes. See United States v. Torres-Rosa, 209
F.3d 4, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2000) (“The absence of an assertion of
innocence counsels against allowing the plea to be withdrawn.”);
United States v. Sanchez-Barreto, 93 F.3d 17, 24 (1st Cir. 1996)
(“The district court need not credit bare protestations of legal
innocence.”).1 Indeed, at the plea colloquy, Gardner admitted
his guilt.
Gardner’s “reliance” on the beneficial terms of the plea
agreement which no longer apply is not a “fair and just” reason
to permit him to withdraw. See United States v. Muriel, 111
F.3d 975, 978 (1st Cir. 1997) (“[W]hen Muriel concluded that
1 It is unclear on what basis Gardner would assert entrapment or that evidence should be suppressed. Gardner did not elaborate on his entrapment theory. In the “Offense Conduct” section of the plea agreement admitted to by Gardner at the plea colloquy, it states that “the defendant waived his Miranda rights” and admitted to officers after his arrest that he traveled to Massachusetts to buy drugs.
4 circumstances had changed such that a potential motion to
suppress seemed to be a better strategy than his plea bargain,
he decided that withdrawal of his plea was in order. But . . .
second thoughts do not constitute a plausible reason for
withdrawal.”). Gardner’s loss of the benefit of the stipulated
sentence is a consequence of his own actions, and the
government’s withdrawal from the plea agreement because of
Gardner’s breach is not a sufficient reason to permit him to
withdraw his guilty pleas. See United States v. Tilley, 964
F.2d 66, 72 (1st Cir. 1992) (finding that district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw
guilty plea after he violated plea agreement by committing
perjury); see also United States v. Robinson, 587 F.3d 1122,
1125 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“Guilty pleas are distinct from plea
agreements.”) (citing United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670, 677-
78 (1997)). Finally, although Gardner filed his motion soon
after the court granted the government’s motion to withdraw from
the plea agreement, any lack of prejudice to the government does
not warrant granting the motion. See United States v. Ramos,
810 F.2d 308, 313 (1st Cir. 1987) (“Only after a defendant has
brought forward a ‘fair and just’ reason, is the government
compelled to demonstrate prejudice . . . .”); Nunez Cordero v.
United States, 533 F.2d 723, 725 (1st Cir. 1976) (affirming
5 district court’s finding that no fair and just reason to
withdraw guilty plea existed even though motion was timely and
did not substantially prejudice the government).
The court finds that no “fair and just” reason exists to
permit Gardner to withdraw his guilty pleas. Therefore, Gardner
cannot withdraw them under Rule 11(d)(2)(B).
B. Rejection of Plea Agreement
At the hearing, Gardner argued that he should be permitted
to withdraw from the plea agreement under § 6 of the plea
agreement and Rule 11(d)(2)(A). Section 6 and Rule 11(d)(2)(A)
allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea if the court,
pursuant to Rule 11(c)(3)(A), rejects a plea agreement
containing a stipulated sentence.2 The government contends that
the court did not reject the plea agreement.
Under Rule 11(d)(2)(A), a defendant may withdraw a guilty
plea as a matter of right if “the court rejects a plea agreement
under Rule 11(c)(5)[.]” Rule 11(c)(5), in turn, outlines the
procedure for a court’s rejection of a plea agreement that
2 Section 6 states the following, in relevant part: “The parties intend the [120-month sentence] to be ‘binding’ under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). By using the word binding the parties mean that if the Court will not accept the plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3)(A), the plea agreement is null and void and the defendant will be allowed the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas.” Doc. no. 72 at 7.
6 contains a stipulated sentence or an agreement not to bring or
dismiss other charges. The procedure requires the court to, in
open court, “inform the parties that the court rejects the plea
agreement”; “advise the defendant personally that the court is
not required to follow the plea agreement and give the defendant
an opportunity to withdraw the plea”; and “advise the defendant
personally that if the plea is not withdrawn, the court may
dispose of the case less favorably toward the defendant than the
plea agreement contemplated.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5).
In this case, however, the court did not “reject” the plea
agreement under Rule 11(c)(3)(A) and (c)(5). In granting the
government’s motion to withdraw from the agreement, the court
enforced § 12 of the plea agreement, which permitted the
government to withdraw if Gardner engaged in criminal activity.
Doc. no. 108 at 6 (“The court finds that this criminal activity
constitutes a substantial breach of the plea agreement.”).
Gardner cannot transform his breach of the plea agreement, which
cost him his right to receive the agreed-upon sentence, into a
rejection of the agreement by the court. United States v.
Hallman, 226 Fed. Appx. 261, 263-64 (4th Cir. May 10, 2007); cf.
United States v. Blackwell, 694 F.2d 1325, 1339 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
(“[I]f the plea is accepted . . . and the defendant adheres to
the terms of the bargain, all parties to it are bound.”)
7 (emphasis added). Therefore, § 6 of the plea agreement and Rule
11(d)(2)(A) do not apply.
C. Section 17
Gardner asserts that § 17 of the plea agreement, which
renders “the entire Plea Agreement” “null and void” if any
provision of the agreement “is deemed invalid or unenforceable,”
permits him to withdraw from his guilty pleas. The defendant
cannot prevail on this argument because the court did not find
any provision of the agreement invalid or unenforceable but
rather enforced the terms of the agreement, read as a whole, as
entered into by the parties.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Gardner’s motion to withdraw
from his guilty pleas (doc. no. 111) is denied. The matter is
to be scheduled for sentencing.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge
May 6, 2019 cc: Richard Monteith, Jr., Esq. Anna Z. Krasinski U.S. Probation U.S. Marshal