United States v. Adame-Hernandez, No. 12-1268 (7th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendants, including Adame were charged with drug conspiracy and cocaine distribution. Adame was also charged with illegal reentry of a previously deported alien following conviction for an aggravated felony. With a written plea agreement under FRCP 11(c)(1)(C), Adame sought to plead guilty to the conspiracy charge; the parties stipulated to a base offense level of 38. The government agreed not to file an information under 21 U.S.C. 851, which would have increased the mandatory minimum sentence due to a prior felony drug conviction. The guidelines range was 188-235 months; the parties agreed to a sentence of 204 months as appropriate. At sentencing, Adame denied that he personally delivered more than 150 kilograms of cocaine, and objected to a fact underlying an adjustment for his aggravated role. The prosecutor argued that this constituted breach of the agreement. At the end of the hearing, Adame asked whether he could abandon his objections and proceed with sentencing under the agreement, but the court denied his request. The judge reset a trial date; the grand jury later returned a second superseding indictment against Adame. Before the trial date, Adame filed an amended "Renewed Petition to Enter a Plea of Guilty.” Rather than indicating a desire to enter a guilty plea to the new indictment, it stated that Adame did not “wish to withdraw" his plea and requested a sentencing hearing. At a hearing, the judge indicated substantial confusion about the case, proceeded through a Rule 11 colloquy, later indicated that she “refused to accept his plea,” but later explained the implications of a plea. Asked how he pleaded, Adame said “guilty.” The court found him guilty of two counts and sentenced him to 300 months. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to allow Adame to maintain his guilty plea and be sentenced under the terms of the parties’ original written plea agreement.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.