Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
An unusual plea agreement led to an unusual decision Thursday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — it ordered a criminal case reassigned to a new judge. In vacating, collectively, 40 years of prison sentences, a unanimous three-judge panel wrote that justice would be served by reassigning the case to someone other than Marilyn Hall Patel, the Northern District’s chief judge. “The appearance of justice is served by reassigning this matter to a different judge, since the district court openly stated that it believed that Raul and Gerardo [Reyes] were attempting to manipulate the system, and this belief may have caused the district court’s adamancy in its rulings,” wrote Montana U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, sitting by designation. He was joined by Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Raymond Fisher. The ruling is also a reminder to judges that their power is limited when parties seek to void a plea agreement. Gerardo and Paul Reyes were indicted in 1995 in a massive cocaine and methamphetamine distribution case. Both later agreed to plea deal under Rule 11(e)(1)(c), asking Patel for a specific sentence — in this case, somewhere between 120 and 150 months for each. In exchange, the brothers were to provide prosecutors with information. Both, however, decided against that and sought to press their cases — a move that didn’t sit well with Patel, who said they couldn’t get out of the agreement “just by failing to cooperate.” The motion to void the deal was supported by the U.S. attorney. Instead, Gerardo got 188 months and Raul got 288 — less than the maximum under the sentencing guidelines but more than the plea deal allowed. Both appealed, and in a factor cited by the panel in its decision to reassign the case, Patel refused to approve the Reyes’ court-appointed attorneys’ request for funding to obtain a transcript of the sentencing hearing. Now, seven years after it was first indicted, the case goes back to square one. “Perhaps we’ll be able to resolve it, perhaps it goes to trial,” said Raul’s attorney, San Francisco solo Mark Vermeulen. Although the government did contest the appeal, prosecutors said they weren’t surprised by the 9th Circuit’s decision. “It doesn’t change the law, and we fully expected a remand,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Hannah Horsley, chief of the appellate section. Assistant U.S. Attorney Laurie Gray argued the case at the 9th Circuit. Kenneth Noel, Gerardo’s attorney, could not be reached for comment.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.