United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Edward R. Jensen, Defendant-appellant, 4 F.3d 994 (6th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 4 F.3d 994 (6th Cir. 1993) Sept. 16, 1993

Before: MARTIN and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges; and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.


Defendant Edward R. Jensen appeals from the district court's order following a guilty plea sentencing defendant to 37-months imprisonment and $300,000 restitution. Defendant contends that the district court erred in (1) refusing to grant a downward departure in order to equalize defendant's term of incarceration with the terms of his co-defendants; and (2) ordering restitution.

Defendant overlooks the fact that the district court did nothing more than enforce the terms of the plea to which defendant and the government agreed, as it was required to do under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e) (2). See United States v. Skidmore, --- F.2d ----, Nos. 92-3665, 92-3666 (6th Cir., July 8, 1993).1  In fact, the district court had no authority to modify the terms of the plea agreement, even for defendant's benefit. Id. Thus, because the district court properly followed Rule 11, defendant's contentions are without merit. AFFIRMED.

WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring separately.

I concur fully with the majority opinion, but would not disturb Jensen's sentence, based on this record, regardless of Rule 11 implications.

 1

Although Skidmore involved a plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e) (1) (A), and the one at issue was made pursuant to Rule 11(e) (1) (C), the district court's directive is the same for purposes of Rule 11(e) (2). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e) (2)