## Facts

- Charmagne LaPoint worked for the United States Postal Service (USPS) as a rural letter carrier.
- In 2013, LaPoint stole approximately 40 pieces of customer mail while carrying out her USPS duties.
- She targeted envelopes that appeared to contain greeting cards because she expected they might include cash or gift cards.
- When she found cash or gift cards, she kept them; she tore up and discarded the greeting cards and their contents.
- LaPoint also stole a laptop computer that was being shipped through the mail.
- The total value of the stolen money and property was approximately $1,294.95.
- The United States charged LaPoint with theft of mail by a postal employee under 18 U.S.C. § 1709.
- LaPoint and the government entered a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement calling for a specific sentence of probation if the court accepted the agreement.
- A victim submitted an impact statement stating that sympathy cards related to her father’s death were taken, causing emotional distress and preventing her from thanking senders.
- The victim also stated the thefts caused her to lose faith in the USPS, leading her to stop shipping care packages to her son in the military and to travel to other cities to mail items.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should accept a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement that bound the court to a probationary sentence, after considering the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2. Whether a probation-only sentence was a fair and adequate punishment for repeated mail theft by a USPS employee, given the breach of trust and the victim’s substantial non-monetary harm.

## Decision

- The court rejected the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
- The court concluded that the agreed-upon sentence of probation was not fair or appropriate when measured against the advisory Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors.
- Because the agreement was binding as to sentence, the court’s rejection meant the case could not proceed on the proposed terms and the parties would need to proceed differently (e.g., renegotiate or proceed without a binding (c)(1)(C) sentence).

## Legal Principles

- A district court is not required to accept a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement; it must decide independently whether the specified sentence is acceptable.
- In deciding whether to accept a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, the court must consider the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (including punishment proportionality, respect for law, deterrence, protection of the public, and sentencing consistency).
- Loss amount does not necessarily capture the full seriousness of mail theft; theft of personal correspondence can cause major dignitary and emotional harms and can damage confidence in the mail service.
- Abuse of a position of trust—such as a postal employee stealing from the mail—bears heavily on offense seriousness and on the need for general deterrence.
- A probation-only sentence may be rejected where it fails to reflect the gravity of repeated misconduct and the broader harms associated with theft from the mail.

## Conclusion

United States v. LaPoint holds that a court must independently assess a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentencing deal against the advisory Guidelines and § 3553(a), and it may reject the deal if the specified sentence is too lenient. Applying that review, the district court refused to accept a plea agreement requiring probation for a USPS employee who repeatedly stole mail and destroyed greeting cards, reasoning that the dollar loss understated the seriousness of the conduct, the breach of trust, and the significant non-monetary harm to victims and public confidence in the mail service.


United States v. LaPoint, 16 F. Supp. 3d 1006 (2014)