Minute Order — United States v. Hallford (Dkt. 80, D. Colo.)

Summary

A Minute Order entered by Judge Nina Y. Wang in United States of America v. Carie L. Hallford, Criminal Action No. 24-cr-00113-NYW-2, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, dated February 24, 2025. Considering the plea agreement tendered under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) (Doc. 49) and the presentence materials, the court concludes that the agreement, which would bind the court to the parties' recommendation, is not in the public interest. Citing United States v. Carrigan, 778 F.2d 1454, it sets out the steps the court must take when rejecting such an agreement. It sets a status conference for March 4, 2025 and orders that the defendant be prepared to withdraw from the agreement or proceed under Rule 11(c)(1)(B).

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW       Document 80       filed 02/24/25    USDC Colorado       pg 1
                                        of 2




                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 24-cr-00113-NYW-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

       Plaintiff,
v.

2.     CARIE L. HALLFORD,

     Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________

                              MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
Entered by Judge Nina Y. Wang

        This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the Plea Agreement tendered by the
Parties pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [Doc.
49]. Rule 11(c)(1)(C) permits the United States and Defendant to “agree that a specific
sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular
provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or
does not apply.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Importantly, under this provision, “such a
recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement.”
Id. In addition, Rule 11(c)(1)(A) allows the United States not to bring, or move to dismiss,
other charges. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(A).

       The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has explained that Rule
11 vests the decision to accept or reject a tendered plea to the sound judicial discretion
of the Court. See United States v. Carrigan, 778 F.2d 1454, 1462 (10th Cir. 1985) (“There
is no absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted, and a court may reject a plea in the
exercise of sound judicial discretion.” (citing Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262
(1971))). Upon consideration of the Plea Agreement, [Doc. 49], the Presentence
Investigation Report, Defendant’s Objections to the Presentence Report, the Addendum
to the Presentence Investigation Report, and the entire docket in this matter, this Court
concludes that the Plea Agreement, which would bind this Court to the recommendation
of the United States and Defendant, is not in the public interest. Carrigan, 778 F.2d at
1462. To the extent that the Court rejects a plea agreement of the type specified in Rule
11(c)(1)(A) or 11(c)(1)(C), the Court must do the following on the record and in open court:

       (A) inform the parties that the Court rejects the plea agreement;

Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW     Document 80      filed 02/24/25   USDC Colorado       pg 2
                                      of 2




      (B) advise the defendant personally that the Court is not required to follow
          the plea agreement and give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw
          the plea; and

      (C) advise the defendant personally that if the plea is not withdrawn, the
          Court may dispose of the case less favorably toward the defendant
          than the plea agreement contemplated.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:

      (1)    A Status Conference in this matter is SET for March 4, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.;

      (2)    The United States Marshals Service SHALL TRANSPORT Defendant
             Carie L. Hallford to Courtroom A-902 in the Alfred A. Arraj United States
             Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294 for this hearing; and

      (3)    Defendant Carie L. Hallford shall be prepared to either withdraw from the
             Plea Agreement or proceed pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B).


DATED: February 24, 2025




                                           2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.233031.80.0.pdf

Size

143,271 bytes

SHA-256

23cd7321807dc13ec9a243b2b6cbd066277f0db5bc8ed38ac91e2f1d03db698b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.233031.80.0.pdf

Original

archive.org