United States v. Manuel Humberto Michel-Galaviz (2005)

A fifth circuit has vacated a Guidelines sentence and remanded for resentencing in several cases, see United States v. Michel-Galaviz, 415 F.3d 946, 949 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Thomas, 422 F.3d 665, 669-70 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Storer, 413 F.3d 918, 923-24 (8th Cir.2005), while one of its decisions appears inconsistent, United States v. Merryman, 136 Fed.Appx. 953, 955 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam).

It logically follows, as the district court recognized, that “[a] defendant has no absolute right to plead guilty to a charge other than that in the indictment.” United States v. Michel-Galaviz, 415 F.3d 946, 948 (8th Cir.2005).

See United States v. Buonocore, 416 F.3d 1124, 1129 (10th Cir. 2005) (courts have discretion to refuse to accept a guilty plea); United States v. Michel-Galaviz, 415 F.3d 946, 948 (8th Cir. 2005) (same).

The related Advisory Committee Notes explain that the rule “introduces a means of protecting the defendant against immaterial or irrelevant allegations in an indictment ... which may, however, be prejudicial.” “Motion to strike portions of the indictment should be granted ‘only if the targeted allegations are clearly not relevant to the charge and are inflammatory and prejudicial.’ ” United States v. Andrews, 749 F.Supp. 1517, 1518 (N.D.Ill.1990) (citation omitted); see Unit…

Compare United States v. Michel-Galaviz , 415 F.3d 946 , 948 (8th Cir. 2005) ("[A] district court has broad discretion in deciding to accept or reject a guilty plea." (cleaned up) ), with id. ("A defendant has no absolute right to plead guilty to a charge other than that in the indictment ." (emphasis added) ), and United States v. Carnahan , 684 F.3d 732 , 737 (8th Cir. 2012) ("The discretion to reject a tendered guilty plea is most often exercised when the defendant cannot…

See United States v. Michel-Galaviz, 415 F.3d 946, 948 (8th Cir 2005).

See United States v. Michel-Galaviz, 415 F.3d 946, 948 (8th Cir 2005).

See United States v. Michel-Galaviz, 415 F.3d 946, 948 (8th Cir.2005).

See United States v. Figueroa, 900 F.2d 1211, 1218 (8th Cir.1990) (citation omitted). “ ‘A motion to strike surplusage from an indictment ... should be granted only where it is clear that the allegations contained therein are not relevant to the charge made or contain inflammatory and prejudicial matter.’ ” United States v. Michel-Galaviz, 415 F.3d 946, 948 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Dranow v. United States, 307 F.2d 545, 558 (8th Cir.1962)).