United States v. Ingram, No. 23-1514 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Cortez Ingram pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Both parties recommended an 87-month sentence, but the district court for the Eastern District of Missouri imposed a 123-month sentence and three years of supervised release. Ingram appealed, arguing that the court was bound by the plea agreement to sentence him to 87 months and that the court erred in departing upward to impose an above-guidelines sentence.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that the district court was not bound by the plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A). The plea agreement was nonbinding on the court and was not converted to a binding agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C). Therefore, the court did not err in declining to accept the parties' sentencing recommendation.
Ingram also argued that the district court erred in departing upward to impose an above-guidelines sentence. The court of appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21 based on Ingram's possession of cocaine and a loaded firearm during his arrest in 2022 (the uncharged conduct). The district court was not prohibited from considering this conduct in sentencing Ingram.
Finally, Ingram believed he should have had access to the probation officer's sealed sentencing recommendation. The court of appeals found that under local rules and administrative order in the Eastern District of Missouri, the probation officer's sentencing recommendation was not to be disclosed. Therefore, the court did not err in failing to disclose the sentencing recommendation to Ingram.
The judgment of the district court was affirmed.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Erickson and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The parties' Rule 11(c)(1)(A) plea agreement was not binding on the court; the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward to reflect the seriousness of the offense, including uncharged conduct; the amount of the departure was not unreasonable; the district court's local rules prohibit the court from disclosing the probation officer's sentencing recommendation, and the district court did not clearly err in failing to sua sponte disclose the recommendation to defendant.
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.