Bryan Doreian was convicted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on two counts of making and subscribing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Before sentencing, Doreian entered into a plea agreement that included a broad appellate waiver. The government agreed to limit the stipulated tax-loss amount, promised not to seek an upward departure, and agreed to move for downward departures under the Sentencing Guidelines for acceptance of responsibility and timely assistance. Doreian was sentenced to 12 months in prison, which was at the low end of his applicable Guidelines range of 12 to 18 months. Doreian appealed, arguing that the plea agreement was invalid because it lacked consideration and that enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.
The court addressed Doreian's challenge to the validity of the plea agreement first, noting that plea agreements are contractual and must be supported by consideration. The court found that the government provided at least four distinct items of consideration in exchange for Doreian's guilty plea: stipulating to a specific tax-loss amount, promising not to seek an upward departure, stipulating to a two-point downward departure for acceptance of responsibility, and promising to move for a third point of downward departure for timely assistance. The court explained that these stipulations provided Doreian with a benefit—a lower offense level and Guidelines range—while constituting a detriment to the government by precluding it from making certain sentencing arguments. The court rejected Doreian's claim that these items were merely immutable facts, stating that the government's promise to forego contesting them was sufficient consideration. Having established the agreement's validity, the court turned to the enforceability of the appellate waiver. Under Third Circuit precedent, a waiver is enforceable if the appeal falls within its scope, the waiver was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcement would not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court found all three conditions met. Doreian did not contest the scope or voluntariness of the waiver, and the district court had conducted a thorough colloquy as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b). Finally, the court found no miscarriage of justice, as Doreian's sentence was within the Guidelines range and presumptively reasonable. The court emphasized that Doreian could not repackage arguments regarding the reasonableness of his sentence, which the district court had already considered under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), into a miscarriage of justice claim.
The decision affirms the finality of plea agreements containing appellate waivers in the Third Circuit when the government provides tangible benefits in exchange for the plea. It clarifies that stipulations regarding sentencing factors, even if they reflect facts the government might otherwise contest, constitute valid consideration. The ruling limits a defendant's ability to appeal a within-Guidelines sentence by recharacterizing sentencing arguments as miscarriage of justice claims. The judgment is affirmed, and no remand instructions were issued.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download