United States v. Carlos Cervantes-Valencia, AKA Carlos Cervantes, AKA Carlos Valencia Cervantes, AKA Carlos Diaz

322 F.3d 1060 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carlos CERVANTES-VALENCIA, aka Carlos Cervantes, aka Carlos Valencia Cervantes, aka Carlos Diaz, Defendant-Appellee. No. 02-50000. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted October 7, 2002. Filed February 25, 2003. Ronald L. Cheng, Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant. Elizabeth A. Newman (briefed), Carlton F. Gunn (argued), Deputy Federal Public Defenders, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Dickran M. Tevrizian, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-01-00585-DT-1. Before PREGERSON, RYMER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM Opinion; Dissent by Judge PREGERSON. OPINION PER CURIAM. 1 Carlos Cervantes-Valencia (Cervantes) pled guilty to two counts of illegal entry into the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (a), and stipulated with the government to a sentence of thirty months pursuant to a binding plea agreement under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(1)(C). At his sentencing hearing, Cervantes advised the court that, before being transferred to federal custody, he…

PER CURIAM Opinion; Dissent by Judge PREGERSON.

OPINION

Carlos Cervantes-Valeneia (Cervantes) pled guilty to two counts of illegal entry into the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (a), and stipulated with the government to a sentence of thirty months pursuant to a binding plea agreement under Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(e)(1)(C). At his sentencing hearing, Cervantes advised the court that, before being transferred to federal custody, he had been in custody for ten months on a state parole violation for coming into the country illegally again. The district court accepted Cervantes’s plea but sentenced him to twenty months’ imprisonment on the footing that it was merely crediting Cervantes for time he had been held in state custody before being transferred to federal detention. The government appeals this sentence, arguing that the court was required to impose.a sentence for the full thirty months specified in the parties’ stipulation, or to put the parties back to square one. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Rule 11(e)(1)(C) provides that the parties may:

Once the district court accepts a plea pursuant to…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The district court acted within its authority when it construed the plea agreement between Carlos Cervantes-Valencia and the government to encompass the ten months’ imprisonment Cervantes-Valencia served in state prison for the same criminal conduct that underlies the federal offense to which he pled guilty. It is the role of the district court to construe ambiguous terms in a plea agreement. The district court should “enforce the literal terms of the plea agreement, but construe ambiguities in favor of the defendant.” United States v. Franco-Lopez, 312 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir.2002) (citing United States v. Quach, 302 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2002)) (internal cite omitted). In construing a plea agreement, the district court must decide what the “defendant reasonably believed to be the terms of the plea agreement at the time of the plea.” Id.

Under paragraph 12 of the plea agreement, both parties were permitted to “supplement the facts stipulated to in this agreement by supplying relevant information to the United States Probation Office and the Court” before sentencing. At sentencing, the district court could reasonably have read paragraph…