United States v. Ronald Bruce Adams

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The majority decides this case contrary to binding circuit authority, and contrary to the views of all nine other circuits that have spoken to the question. Fortunately, the practical significance of the majority’s holding should gradually dissipate as preBooker 1 sentences complete their passage through appellate and post-conviction re *1097 view. Unfortunately, there are plenty of pre-Booker sentences left to go.

The district judge’s duty to advise a defendant of “any mandatory minimum penalty” 2 has always been understood to mean statutory mandatory mínimums, not guideline “mandatory” mínimums. What everyone (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys) interpreting criminal law knew, until today’s opinion, was that “mandatory mínimums” meant such penalties as the five-year, statutory mandatory minimum sentence — with no possibility of probation, parole, or of serving it concurrently with any other term — for using a gun during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. 3 There is no discretion, no exception, and no flexibility to depart from this sort of statutory, mandatory minimum.

There is now no such thing as a “mandatory minimum”…

432 F.3d 1092 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Bruce ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 04-30339. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted September 14, 2005. Filed January 3, 2006. Raymond J. Dearie, Jr., Ogden Murphy Wallace, P.L.L.C., Seattle, WA, Robert S. Mahler, Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, Seattle, WA; Daniel Donovan, Thompson Potts & Donovan PC, Great Falls, MT, for the defendant-appellant. William W. Mercer, United States Attorney, and Bernard F. Hubley, Assistant United States Attorney, Helena, MT, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-02-00021-CCL. Before ALARCÓN, KOZINSKI, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. ALARCÓN, Circuit Judge. 1 Ronald Adams appeals from the district court's order sentencing him to five years in prison and fining him $400,000. He contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, that the district court improperly failed to give him a sentence reduction under the Safety Valve, and that his sentence violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125…

Ronald Adams appeals from the district court’s order sentencing him to five years in prison and fining him $400,000. He contends that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, that the district court improperly failed to give him a sentence reduction under the Safety Valve, and that his sentence violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We vacate Mr. Adams’s guilty plea and conviction because we conclude that it was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent in light of the district court’s failure to inform him that he was subject to a mandatory fine under the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, we do not consider the additional issues raised by Mr. Adams.

I

On September 2, 2003, Montana state officials found 200 marijuana plants on Mr. Adams’s property. Mr. Adams entered into a plea agreement with the Government, in which he admitted planting the garden. In the plea agreement, the Government agreed to recommend to the district court that no fine be imposed as part of his sentence. The Presentence Report (“PSR”) found that, pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 5E 1.2(c)(3) and (4), 1…