United States v. Carmen Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Carmen Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
52 citation events (39 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Zuk (ca4, 2017-10-24) · Strongest negative: United States v. Mutschler (wawd, 2016-01-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" United States v. Mutschler
W.D. Wash. · 2016 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir.1991) (holding that, despite its unilateral wording, the waiver provision at issue also operated to preclude the Government from appealing).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Zuk
4th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
In those circumstances, we concluded that the government “must be held to have implicitly” waived its right to appeal the defendant’s sentence, “as the defendant explicitly did,” reasoning that it would be “far too one-sided to construe the plea agreement to permit an appeal by the government for a fancied mistake by the district court ... but not to permit an appeal on similar grounds by the defendant.” Id. at 1299-1300 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Bowe, 257 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 2001) (“In Guevara, this court held that a plea agreement provision that bars the…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Morace
4th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Although there appears to be an open question concerning the government's right to appeal in this circumstance, see United States v. Cohen, 459 F.3d 490 , 495 n. 2 (4th Cir.2006); United States v. Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299, 1299-1300 (4th Cir.1991), Morace does not argue that the government should be precluded from pursuing this appeal, and we therefore need not decide the question, see United States v. Brock, 211 F.3d 88 , 90 n. 1 (4th Cir.2000) (declining to consider appeal waiver sua sponte). 7 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Cohen
4th Cir. · 2006 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299, 1299-1300 (4th Cir. 1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Steven Ira Cohen
4th Cir. · 2006 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299, 1299-1300 (4th Cir.1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Blick
4th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Id. at 5 To whatever extent appeal waivers can be considered "inequitable," we evened the playing field somewhat in United States v. Guevera, 941 F.2d 1299, 1299 (4th Cir. 1991), where we held that when a defendant waives the right to appeal in a plea agreement, "such a provision against appeals must also be enforced against the government." In United States v. Bowe, 257 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 2001), we held that "a party’s waiver of the right to seek appellate review is not enforceable where the opposing party breaches a plea agreement," and a defendant’s material breach of the plea agre…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. George R. Blick (2×)
4th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
To whatever extent appeal waivers can be considered "inequitable,” we evened the playing field somewhat in United States v. Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299, 1299 (4th Cir.1991), where we held that when a defendant waives the right to appeal in a plea agreement, "such a provision against appeals must also be enforced against the government.” In United States v. Bowe, 257 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir.2001), we held that "a party’s waiver of the right to seek appellate review is not enforceable where the opposing party breaches a plea agreement,” and a defendant's material breach of the plea agreement r…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Miles
10th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Guevara , 941 F.2d 1299 , 1299-1300 (4th Cir. 1991) (concluding that to do otherwise was "too one-sided" and "that such a provision against appeals must also be enforced against the government, which must be held to have implicitly cast its lot with the district court, as the defendant explicitly did").
examined Cited "see" United States v. Little (4×)
4th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299 , 1299 1300 (4th Cir.1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Carmen GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellee
90-5840.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Aug 12, 1991.
941 F.2d 1299
Geoffrey Robert Brigham, Crim. Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued (Henry E. Hudson, U.S. Atty., William G. Otis, Sr. Litigation Counsel, Christine Wright, Asst. U.S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for plaintiff-appellant., Gregory Bruce English, English & Smith, Alexandria, Va., for defendant-ap-pellee.
Russell, Widener, Michael, Western, Virginia.
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

WIDENER, Circuit Judge:

Carmen Guevara entered into a plea agreement with the government under which she agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, to commit mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and to conduct laundering of money instruments under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i), all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. She further agreed to forfeit her home and the $4,651.00 proceeds from the sale of her condominium. She pleaded guilty, an order of forfeiture was entered, and a deed of the house to the government was executed to give effect to the agreement. Guevara was then sentenced to 28 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. The severity of this sentence not to its liking, the government appealed.

The plea agreement contains a provision whereby “... defendant knowingly waives her right to appeal the sentence in exchange for the concessions made by the government in this agreement,” and another provision that “... the defendant, knowing that he has a right of direct appeal of the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and the grounds listed therein, expressly waives the right to appeal her sentence on those grounds or on any ground.” Similar provisions waiving a defendant’s right to appeal have been upheld in United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51 (4th Cir.1990). In that case, we considered language indistinguishable from that which we have quoted above and gave as a reason for our decision that “[t]he government has added the waiver language to its standard plea precisely because it preserves the finality of judgments and sentences imposed pursuant to valid pleas of guilty.” Wiggins, 905 F.2d at 54. The finality of judgments and sentences imposed is no more preserved by appeals by the government than by appeals by the defendant, and it strikes us as far too one-sided to construe the plea agreement to permit an appeal by the government for a fancied mistake by the district court, as here, but not to permit an appeal on similar grounds by the defendant, which Wiggins held to be precluded. That being the case, we are of opinion that such a provision against appeals must also be enforced against the government, which must be held to have implicitly cast its lot with[*1300] the district court, as the defendant explicitly did.

Accordingly, the government’s appeal is

DISMISSED.