IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff/Appellee,
V

STEVEN KEITH VANDEBRAKE, Defendant/Appellant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 11-1390

MOTION TO ENFORCE THE PLEA AGREEMENT

The Appellant, Steven Keith VandeBrake, by and through his undersigned

counsel, submits this Motion to Enforce the Plea Agreement.

INTRODUCTION
Mr. VandeBrake pleaded guilty to a three-count Information alleging that he
conspired to fx prices and rig bids for ready-mix concrete in northwest Iowa. The

district court accepted Mr. VandeBrake's guilty plea pursuant to aplea agreement

entered into under Fed.

R. Crim. P. l1(c)(1)(B), App. 74-84 (the "Plea

Agreement").t In the Plea Agreement, the government agreed not to "seek or

support" any sentence outside the range specified by the applicable United States

Sentencing Guidelines. Pursuant Guidelines range was 21

t

to U.S.S.G. $

2R1.1, Mr. VandeBrake's

between

to 2l months imprisonment and a fine of

References to "App." are to the Appellant's Appendix in this matter.

-1Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

556,663.48 and $283,317.43.2 Add. 51; PSR

T 130. Despite the government's

recommendation for a within-Guidelines sentence, the district court varied upward,

imposing a prison sentence of 48 months and a criminal f,rne of $829,715.85.

Add. 143. In his opening brief to this Court, Mr. VandeBrake asserted that the district
court erred in imposing the term of imprisonment and the fine.3 The government's

brief was filed on July 8,2011. It urges this Court to affirm on both issues. As
explained below, the government's support for the district court's sentence on
appeal breaches its promise

in the Plea Agreement not to "suppot" an above-

Guidelines sentence. To remedy this breach, Mr. VandeBrake requests that the Court strike Parts II, III, and IV of the argument section of the govefltment's brief.

2 The plea agreement specified a Guidelines prison range of 18 to 24 months. At sentencing, however, Mr. VandeBrake conceded that a 4-level role
enhancement under U.S.S.G. $ 381.1 was appropriate, bringing the range to 27 months.

2l

to

VandeBrake also asserts in this appeal that the district court abused its discretion when it rejected aplea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 1l(c)(t)(C). That issue is not implicated by this Motion.

' Mr.

-2Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

ARGUMENT

I.

The Government Has Breached the Plea Agreement.

Plea agreements are "contractual

in

nature and generally governed by

ordinary contract principles." United Stqtes v. Van Thournout, 100 F.3d 590,
594 (8th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). Unlike typical contracts, however, plea
agreements "must be attended receives the performance he is

by constitutional safeguards to ensure a defendant

due." United States v. Britt,

917 F.2d 353, 359 (8th

Cir. 1990). As such, "[w]here

a plea agreement is ambiguous, the ambiguities are

construed against the government." Margall-Olvera v. L115., 43 F.3d 345,353

(8th Cir. 1994). Federal appeals courts routinely entertain motions to enforce plea
agreements when the breach occurs as part

of the appellate process. See United

States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2009) (entertaining government's

motion to dismiss predicated on defendant's appeal waiver in plea agreement);

United States v. Hahn,359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc) (requiring government to file a "Motion for Enforcement of the Plea Agreement" to raise
appeal waiver).

Both parties to the Plea Agreement agreed, without exception, "not to seek

or support any sentence outside of the Guidelines range." App. 80. The parties
thus committed themselves not to "support" a sentence below or above the range

-3Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

provided by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Yet that is precisely what
the government has done in this Court. Merriam-Webster's defines "support" as to

"defend as valid or

right."

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, avallable at

ht://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support. The overt objective of Parts

U,

ilI, and fV of the government's

argument is to "defend" the district court's

above-Guidelines sentence "as valid or

right."

Because the government thus

"supportfs]" an above-Guidelines sentence, it breaches the plea agreement.

In Part II of its argument section, the government contends that the Plea
Agreement does not bar

it

from urging this Court to affirm the district court's

sentence. The government marshals four arguments in support: (i) that United
States v. lVinters,

4ll F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2005), authorizes it to defend the district

court's sentence, (ii) that the "actions of the parties" demonstrate no intent "to bar the government from VandeBrake's appeal," (iii) that the government's promise not to "support" an above-Guidelines sentence applied only in the district court,
and (iv) that the "non-support" provision is modif,red by other provisions in the

Plea Agreement. Appellee's Br. 30-32. None of these arguments withstands

scrutmy
4

The government also suggests that the Court need not consider this issue because Mr. VandeBrake failed to develop it in his opening brief. Appellee's Br.

-4Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

First, the government contends that Winters authorizes its support of the
district court's sentence. LYinters does no such thing. Unlike the Plea Agreement

here, the two plea agreements

in Winters did not bar the government

from

"support[ing]"

a particular sentence.

Rather, they required only that the

government "recommend concurrent sentences to the court." 41 1 F.3d at 975. The government

fully discharged that obligation in the district court, leaving it free to of

consecutive

argue that this Court should affirm the district court's imposition

sentences. Because the Winters plea agreement lacks the "non-support" obligation that is the basis for this Motion, it gives no aid to the govenment's position.s

the government had not yet breached the Plea Agreement. There was, therefore, no issue for Mr. VandeBrake to develop. Indeed, shortly after Mr. VandeBrake filed his opening brief, the government asked this Court for a 30-day extension of the deadline to file its brief in part because it needed time to consider its obligations under the plea agreement. See Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Appellee's Brief at2 (filed May I8,2011). Mr. VandeBrake can hardly be faulted for not developing an argument about a breach that might never have happened.

29-30. At the time Mr. VandeBrake filed his opening briel however,

s Likewise, the two out-of-circuit cases cited by the government do not involve plea agreements containing the "non-support" obligation on which this Motion relies. In both cases, as in Winters, the government's obligations under the plea agreements were limited to activities in the district court. See United States v. Colon, 220 F.3d 48, 5 I-52 (2nd Cir. 2000); United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 1990).

-5Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

Second, the government contends that "the parties amended the [Plea]
Agreement to

clariff that VandeBrake had the right to appeal

an above-guidelines

sentence without mentioning any limitation participate in such an appeal." Appellee's Br.

on the government's ability

to

at3l.

Here, the government states a

conclusion, not an argument. Contrary

to the govemment's

insistence, its

agreement not to "suppot" art above-Guidelines sentence s a "limitation on the

government's ability to participate" in an appeal. That limitation existed in the

Plea Agreement in the same form both before and after the amendment on which the government relies. It was by no means necessary for the parties to restate the

"non-support" language atthe time of the amendment to give that language effect.

Third, the government urges that its agreement not to support an aboveGuidelines sentence "must be read as restricting the government only in the district

court" because "[t]hat language was contained in the original fRule 1l](cXlXC)
agreement under which VandeBrake had

no right to appeal his

sentence."

Appellee's Br. at31r The goverment's logic is opaque. It may be suggesting that
its prosecutor should have removed the "support" limitation when he converted the

earlier Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement to a Rule 11(c)(1)(B) agreement.6 But the

suggestion, it is belied by the fact that the Antitrust Division's model plea agreement uses the "seek or support" language

If that is indeed the government's

-6Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

prosecutor

did not remove that language, so it remained part of the Plea

the

Agreement. Paragraph 9 of the Plea Agreement nowhere hints that

government's agreement not to support an above-Guidelines sentence applied only

in the district court

Fourth, the government claims that the Plea Agreement "expressly allows
the government" to support the district court's sentence on appeal. Appellee's Br.

32. The government's reasoning takes two steps. First, the government

says that

it

is allowed to support non-Guidelines sentences lhat are imposed for reasons "set forth" in the Plea Agreement. Second, the government contends it may defend the district court's sentence because the Plea Agreement "sets forth" that the district court would ultimately impose a sentence based on 18 U.S.C. $ 3553(a). The
government's reasoning fails at both steps

At the first

step, the government misreads the Plea Agreement.

In fuIl, the

controlling sentence provides that: "The parties agree not to seek or support any
sentence outside

of the Guidelines range nor any Guidelines adjustment for any in this Plea Agreement." App. 80. The government

reason that is not set forth

Individual
:

for both Rule 11(c)(1)(B) and Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreements.

,See

Plea

Agreement,

available

Model Annotated
at

http //www justice.

go v I atr I publiciguidelines/indlrlea_agree.htm.

-7
Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 7

Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

suggests

that the final phrase - "for any reason not set forth in this

Plea

Agreement"

modifies the agreement not to seek or support a non-Guidelines

sentence. This is semantically implausible.

A natural reading of the sentence is

that

it

prohibits the parties from seeking or supporting two things: (1) "any

sentence outside of the Guidelines range" and (2) "any Guidelines adjustment for any reason that is not set forth in this Plea Agreement."

As for the second step, even if "any reason that is not set forth in this Plea

Agreement" modifies

"any sentence outside the Guidelines range,"

the

govemment's reasoning still fails. The government claims that it may defend the sentence because the Plea Agreement provides that the district court would

ultimately impose sentence under $ 3553(a). But the Plea Agreement's recital of
sentencing procedure

is not, under any plausible understanding, a

"reason"

supporting

above-Guidelines sentence.

It is, rather, a description of how

sentencing works. Thus, even

if the government may support an above-Guidelines

in th[e] Plea Agreement," it has not identified any

sentence for reasons "set forth

"reasons" justifuing its support for the sentence imposed on Mr. VandeBrake.

II.

The Court Should Grant Specific Performance By Striking The

Offending Portions of the Government's Brief.

Two potential remedies exist to cure the government's breach of a plea

agreement: specific performance and withdrawal of the guilty

plea. Marglli-

-8Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

Olvera, 43 F.3d at 354-55. Under the circumstances of the government's breach,

Mr. VandeBrake requests specific performance in the form of an order striking

Parts

II, UI, and IV of the argument section of the government's brief. In this

Circuit, specific performance is the "preferred remedy." Id. at

355.

"In

determining whether to grant specific performance," courts consider three factors:

"(1) the possible prejudice to the defendant, (2) the conduct of the government, and
(3) the public interesl." Id. Each of the Margalli-Olvera factors militates for speciflrc performance here.

The first factor, prejudice to the defendant, is satisfied where a defendant waived

rights in exchange for the government's promises.

Id.

As consideration for the

government's promise

not to support an

above-Guidelines sentence, Mr.

VandeBrake waived six specific rights, enumerated in paragraph 1 of the Plea

Agreement. These included the right to be charged by indictment, the right to trial
by jury, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Prejudice is thus

clear. The second factor - the government's conduct - is equally clear, as the
government bears sole responsibility for the breach.T Finally, the public interest

The government cannot claim that the breach was inadvertent given Mr. VandeBrake's statement in his opening brief that "[t]he government cannot, without breaching this agreement, defend the district court's above-Guidelines sentence in this appeal." Appellant's Br. 23 n.7.

-9Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

favors specific performance, as "fe]nforcement of plea agreements is necessary for

their effective functioning as a tool for disposing of criminal cases, and plea
bargaining is an important part of the criminal justice system."

Id. As in Margalli-

Olvera itsel| "all three . . . factors and the preference for specific performance
counsel in favor of specific performance." fd.

WHEREFORE, Mr. VandeBrake requests that this Court enforce the

parties' Plea Agreement by striking Parts II, III, and IV of the argument section of
the government's brief

-10Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

BELIN MCCORMICK, P.C By Mark E. Weinhardt William B. Ortman

666 Walnut Street, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-3989 Telephone: (515) 283-4610 Facsimile: (5 1 5) 558-0610 E-Mail : meweinh ardt@belinmccormick. com wbortman@belinmccormick. com

Francis L. Goodwrn BARON, SAR, GOODWIN, GILL & LOHR P.O. Box 717 Sioux City, IA 51 101 Telephone: (7 12) 277 -1015 Facsimile : (7 12) 21 7 -3067 E-Mail: [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Appellate Case: 11-1390

Page: 11

- 11Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served upon the parties to this action by serving a copy upon each of the attorneys listed below on July ..))> , 20Il by

! ! !

U.S. Mail Hand Delivered

FedE>r/

! !

FAX
Electronic Mail / ECF

Overnight Carrier

f, CM

John P. Fonte John J. Powers, III U.S. Department of Justice

Timot T. Duax
US Attorney's Office 600 4th Street, Suite 670 Sioux City, IA 5 1 101 timot. duax@usdoj gov
.

Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 j ohn. fonte@usdoj gov ; j ohn.powers@usdoj. gov
.

Andre M. Geverola Laura Heidi Manschreck Robert Michael Jacobs U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 209 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 600 Chicago, lL 60604
andre. geverola@usdoj. gov
;

heidi.manschreck@usdoj. gov robertjacobs .gov; Signat

(01

-12Appellate Case: 11-1390 Page: 12 Date Filed: 07/22/2011 Entry ID: 3810663