10-3566 U.S. v. Thomas

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Appeal waivers

There was consideration for a defendant’s appeal waiver where the government agreed to recommend an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.

“We need not decide whether to accept Thomas’s consideration argument because the government did give consideration for Thomas’s waiver in the form of two promises: a promise to recommend a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and a promise to recommend a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range. Ultimately, this consideration gave Thomas no advantage. Thomas lied under oath, so the government did not recommend a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. And the calculated guidelines range exceeded the statutory maximum, so the government’s promise to recommend a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range had no effect on Thomas’s sentence. But had things gone differently—that is, had Thomas actually accepted responsibility instead of offering an implausible denial of the facts of his crime— the government would have been bound to recommend a sentence of 100 months’ imprisonment. Thomas’s lack of foresight does not render his plea agreement unenforceable. See United States v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280, 282 (7th Cir. 1995) (‘Defendants who appeal from sentences following plea agreements always point to unanticipated and unwelcome developments.’).”

Dismissed.

10-3566 U.S. v. Thomas

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Miller, J., Kanne, J.

Full Text