United States v. Grady Myers

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Grady Myers

696 F. App'x 822

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 23, 2017

Docket16-50080

StatusUnpublished

This text of 696 F. App'x 822 (United States v. Grady Myers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Grady Myers, 696 F. App'x 822 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

To the extent a plea agreement is capable of more than one interpretation, we “constru[e] any ambiguities in the defendant’s favor.” United States v. Heredia, 768 F.3d 1220, 1230 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the government breached paragraph 30 of the plea agreement because it argued for the higher drug quantity, at several points, thereby encouraging the court to impose a higher sentence. In light of this breach, “we must remand this matter to a different judge, although in doing so we ‘intend no criticism of the district judge by this action, and none should be inferred.’ ” United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965, 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129, 1136 n.7 (9th Cir. 1999)).

A minimal or minor participant adjustment under § 3B1.2 is available if the defendant was substantially less culpable than his co-participants. United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court failed to compare Myers’s conduct to that of his co-conspirators. That was error and, on remand, the district court shall reconsider Myers’s eligibility for a mitigating role reduction.

We vacate Myers’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing before a different district court judge.

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

To the extent a plea agreement is capable of more than one interpretation, we “constru[e] any ambiguities in the defendant’s favor.” United States v. Heredia, 768 F.3d 1220, 1230 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the government breached paragraph 30 of the plea agreement because it argued for the higher drug quantity, at several points, thereby encouraging the court to impose a higher sentence. In light of this breach, “we must remand this matter to a different judge, although in doing so we ‘intend no criticism of the district judge by this action, and none should be inferred.’ ” United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965, 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129, 1136 n.7 (9th Cir. 1999)).

A minimal or minor participant adjustment under § 3B1.2 is available if the defendant was substantially less culpable than his co-participants. United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court failed to compare Myers’s conduct to that of his co-conspirators. That was error and, on remand, the district court shall reconsider Myers’s eligibility for a mitigating role reduction.

We vacate Myers’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing before a different district court judge.

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 F. App'x 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-grady-myers-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack