Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

United States v. Marion His Law, Also Known as Charlie Boy His Law

United States v. Marion His L., Also Known as Charlie Boy His L., 85 F.3d 379 (8th Cir. 1996)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1996-06-05
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. Marion His Law challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The government argues the appeal should be dismissed because His Law agreed in the plea agreement to waive his right to appeal, or challenge via post-conviction writs of habeas corpus or co-ram nobis, the district court’s entry of judgment and imposition of sentence. We construe this as a promise on His Law’s part not to appeal his sentence. We have held that a promise made in a plea agreement is binding on the government and may be specifically enforced by a defendant.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Marion His Law, Also Known as Charlie Boy His Law. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
41 opinions
UNITED STATES v. HIS LAW,85 F.3d 379(8th Cir. 1996)
United States of America, Appellee, v. Marion His Law, also known as
Charlie Boy His Law, Appellant.
No. 95-4228
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 1996
Filed June 5, 1996
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
Counsel who represented the appellant was Cheryl F. Laurenz-Bogue of Dupree, SD.

Counsel who represented the appellee was Thomas J. Wright, AUSA, of Pierre, SD.
Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Marion His Law challenges the sentence the district court1imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of21 U.S.C. §(s) 841. The government argues the appeal should be dismissed because His Law agreed in the plea agreement to waive his right to appeal, or challenge via post-conviction writs of habeas corpus or coram nobis, the district court's entry of judgment and imposition of sentence. We construe this as a promise on His Law's part not to appeal his sentence. We have held that a promise made in a plea agreement is binding on the government and may be specifically enforced by a defendant. United States v. Kelly,18 F.3d 612,615-16(8th Cir. 1994). We conclude that this principle applies with equal force against defendants and therefore against His Law in this case.

[2] We therefore specifically enforce His Law's promise against him by dismissing his appeal.Page 380
  1. The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. ↩