Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Mendenhall
Citation: 310 F. App'x 195Docket: No. 07-30203
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 26, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
William Clifford Mendenhall appeals his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and vacates the judgment, remanding for resentencing due to the district court's erroneous rejection of the plea agreement. Mendenhall contends, and the government concedes, that the district court misunderstood the plea agreement's addendum as if it were a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea, which would require a specific sentence below the statutory minimum. However, the addendum did not invoke this rule. Instead, it allowed the government to file a motion to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum based on U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). The plea agreement was governed by Rule 11(c)(1)(A) and (B), lacking any reference to a specific sentence or the requirements of Rule 11(c)(1)(C). The district court's confusion was compounded by a misunderstanding of defense counsel's statements regarding Mendenhall's right to appeal. The prosecutor withdrew the motion for a reduced sentence due to these misunderstandings. Consequently, the district court's rejection of the plea agreement was erroneous. The appellate court declines Mendenhall's request to reassign the case to a different judge, ruling that the same district court shall reconsider the plea agreement. Mendenhall will have another chance to enter the agreement, and the government can seek leniency if warranted. The district court maintains full discretion for sentencing per 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and relevant case law. The judgment is vacated and the case remanded. This ruling is not for publication and does not serve as precedent except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.