Mendenhall

United States v. Mendenhall

Good Law
310 F. App'x 195
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 27, 2009No. 07-30203California714 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant-Appellant William Clifford Mendenhall (Mendenhall) appeals his conviction by guilty plea for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 846. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as is necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate the judgment and remand the case for resentencing.

Mendenhall argues, and the government concedes, that the district court erroneously rejected the plea agreement in this case. See, e.g., United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623 (9th Cir.2007). We agree.

First, the district court misunderstood the addendum to the plea agreement as equivalent to a plea under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that required the court fix a sentence below the statutory minimum. It is true that once a district court accepts a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, the court is bound by the stipulated specific sentence or sentencing range. In re Morgan, 506 F.3d *197 705, 708-09 (9th Cir.2007). A district court has discretion to reject such a plea.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.