Hunter v. United States · ¶17

First, the court's statement about appeal rights could not have “orally modified the plea agreement” between Hunter and the Government. Brief for Hunter 12. That agreement, as earlier noted, was specific about how modifications could occur: only if “in writing and signed by all parties.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 15a; see supra, at 718. And even assuming away that provision, nothing that happened in the sentencing hearing shows the mutual agreement between parties needed to accomplish a modification. See Hawkins v. United States, 96 U. S. 689, 696 (1877) (“Mutual consent is required to modify” an agreement). There was neither an offer nor an acceptance by those parties, and so no conceivable meeting of the minds. It seems unlikely that, as Hunter urges, the court's statement was meant to produce a modification, see Brief for Hunter 42; far more likely, given that the court did not refer to…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.