Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Case Digests / 00-3519, 00-3520, 00-3747, 00-3781 & 01-1929 U.S. v. Martin, et al.

00-3519, 00-3520, 00-3747, 00-3781 & 01-1929 U.S. v. Martin, et al.

“[T]he court has a role to play in plea bargains and need not accept a plea agreement because there is no absolute right to plead guilty… The agreement here did not bind the court, and it was free to reject the agreement if it found the agreement would undermine the sentencing guidelines or did not adequately take into account the defendant’s relevant conduct. See id.; Sandles, 80 F.3d at 1147-49. Taking into consideration Matias, Jr.’s role in the conspiracy and the sentence he would receive, the district court properly rejected the plea on the grounds it would undermine the sentencing guidelines. Greener, 979 F.2d at 519-20. The district court’s role in reviewing plea agreements under U.S.S.G. 6B1.2 is neither improper, nor an exercise of executive authority in violation of the constitution. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plea agreement in this case.”

Affirmed.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Shabaz, J., Bauer, J.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*