U.S. v. Faruq
| Decision Date | 04 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-5340,92-5340 |
| Citation | 985 F.2d 554 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karim FARUQ, a/k/a Charles Williams, Defendant-Appellant. . Argued: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-217-K)
Arcangelo M. Tuminelli, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
E. Thomas Roberts, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Richard D. Bennett, United States Attorney, Robert E. Sims, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before RUSSELL and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Karim Faruq, a.k.a. Charles Williams, appeals from the refusal by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to dismiss a multi-count indictment issued against Appellant, an indictment Appellant contends is barred by a written plea agreement in a prior case and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because we find no error in the lower court's denial of Appellant's motion to dismiss, we affirm.
The facts pertinent to this appeal are these. During late 1988 and early 1989 federal and local authorities commenced an investigation into the alleged drug trafficking activities of Appellant. As a result of this investigation, on February 15, 1990, law enforcement authorities executed search and seizure warrants with regard to properties associated with Appellant. The searches yielded drug paraphernalia, a firearm, and an amount in excess of $100,000 in cash.
On February 15, 1990, Appellant was charged in Maryland state court with the offenses of felon in possession of a handgun and drug paraphernalia. On April 11, 1990, Appellant was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on the basis of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), felon in possession of a weapon. Subsequent to the issuance of the federal indictment, the state charges were dropped. On June 25, 1990, the United States proffered a written plea agreement to Appellant for his inspection. Appellant related to the United States that he did not favor the requirement that jewelry of his parents be forfeited; this requirement was subsequently deleted. The modified agreement was then executed, the terms being that Appellant plead guilty, which he did, to a felon in possession of a weapon charge, that Appellant forfeit property and currency amounting to nearly one-third of a million dollars, and refrain from contesting the forfeitures. In return, the United States agreed that Appellant would qualify for positive sentence consideration for acceptance of responsibility, that the United States would recommend a sentence at the lower end of the applicable guideline, and that Appellant would remain free on bond pending sentencing. On January 11, 1991, Judge Herbert F. Murray sentenced Appellant to term of imprisonment of fifteen months.
On October 9, 1991, while Appellant was incarcerated, a ninecount federal indictment issued charging Appellant with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine (counts I and II); income tax evasion (counts IV, V and VI); money laundering (count VII); heroin distribution (count VIII); and engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, based on the narcotics charges (count IX). A substantially similar second superseding indictment was returned on December 4, 1991.
On January 16, 1992, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss counts I, II, IV, V, VI, VII and IX of the indictment, alleging violations of the aforementioned plea agreement and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1 Subsequent to extensive evidentiary hearings on the motion, Judge Frank A. Kaufman entered Orders on April 9, 1992, denying Appellant's motion as to each ground asserted.
Appellant makes two arguments in his appeal. First, Appellant contends that the lower court erred in denying his motion to dismiss counts I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, and IX, arguing that the plea agreement of June 25, 1990 contained a promise that the United States would not prosecute Appellant for the behaviors alleged in the aforementioned counts. Second, Appellant argues that the lower court erred in permitting the United States to prosecute him for those counts because the United States at the time of the first prosecution knew or could have discovered through due diligence the additional evidence to bring the counts at the time of the first prosecution. Therefore, Appellant argues, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the United States from prosecuting Appellant in the second prosecution under the "due diligence" exception as enunciated by the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Binker, 799 F.2d 695 (11th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1089 (1987), and United States v. Boldin, 772 F.2d 719 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, Scarborough v. United States, 475 U.S. 1098 (1986). We find no merit in either of these contentions.
The plea agreement entered into by Appellant and the United States on June 25, 1990, provides in pertinent part as follows:
(5) (b) It is further agreed that the States Attorney's Office will not reinstitute any charges arising from the search of February 15, 1990.
(8) This letter states the complete plea agreement in this case. There are no other agreements, promises, undertakings, or understandings between your client and this Office. Specifically, this agreement relates only to the charges arising from the search of February 15, 1990. It does not relate to any other investigation which law enforcement would undertake.
(Emphasis added.)
Appellant asserts that the United States made a clear and unambiguous promise not to prosecute him for any crimes"arising" from the searches on February 15, 1990, and that the charges in his present indictment arise from those searches. According to Appellant, he is entitled to specific performance of the promise because he relied to his detriment on that promise. Cooper v. United States, 594 F.2d 12 (4th Cir. 1979).
The United States argues that the lower court here found the agreement to be unambiguous and therefore Appellant should not be entitled to have a promise read into the agreement just because he believed the agreement contained such a promise. United States v. Sutton, 794 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, the United States contends, there was simply no promise about what, if any, charges would or would not be brought. Both prosecutors that signed the agreement testified that subsection (8) simply makes clear that there is no agreement about additional investigations and that the plea agreement relates only to the charges which had been brought against Appellant arising from the searches, i.e., the state charges of drug paraphernalia and firearm possession, and the federal charge of felon in possession of a weapon to which Appellant pled guilty. The United States asserts that in fact the specific purpose of this language was to make clear the caveat that promises about other investigations, which were ongoing, were not being made.
Additionally, the United States argues that the fact that the agreement contained in paragraph 5 an explicit promise by the States Attorney's Office not to reinstitute the charges which it had dismissed makes clear that, had the parties wished to include a future prosecution prohibition, they knew how to do so. The fact that the agreement did not contain an explicit promise by the United States not to lodge such additional charges means that no agreement was reached on that issue by the parties. According to the United States, all of the government's obligations and promises were recited in paragraph (5). The purpose of paragraph (8) was to make clear that no other promises relating to prosecution had been made except those relating to the charges already brought against Appellant. It is only the gun and paraphernalia charges that could "arise" from the February 15 searches. These were the only charges brought against Appellant as of the date of the plea agreement and it is only these charges that arose as a result of the searches.
The law in the area of plea agreement interpretation is long wellsettled. In such interpretations, "we must apply fundamental contract and agency principles to plea bargains as the best means to fair enforcement of the parties' agreed obligations." United States v. McIntosh, 612 F.2d 835, 837 (4th Cir. 1979). Therefore, "any dispute over the terms of the agreement is to be resolved by objective standards." United States v. Krasn, 614 F.2d 1229, 1233 (9th Cir. 1980).
In this regard, the threshold consideration is whether the agreement is ambiguous or susceptible of alternative interpretations. Here, the parties essentially agree that subsection (8) of the June 25, 1990, plea agreement is unambiguous. The question, therefore, is what meaning to lend to that patently unambiguous provision. In this respect, we are in complete agreement with the conclusions of Judge Kaufman, reached after hearing extensive testimony on the matter. Judge Kaufman found subsection (8) meant exactly what it said: that the agreement related only to the charges arising from the search of February 15, 1990. In proffering subsection (8), "the United States Government ... agreed not to prosecute in connection with charges other than the gun charge ... So if I look at the June 25, 1990 agreement I find no ambiguity and I find it...
To continue reading
Request your trial