Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02940/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02940-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Rivera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

 United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2940

___________

United States of America, * 

 * 

 Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District of

 * Nebraska.

Jose Rivera, * 

 * [UNPUBLISHED] 

 Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2006

Filed: December 26, 2006

___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Rivera appeals the 188-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more

of a substance containing methamphetamine, 50 grams or more of a substance

containing crack cocaine, and 5 kilograms or more of a substance containing cocaine

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), 846. He argues the district court1

abused its discretion in rejecting his initial plea agreement. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-2940 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/26/2006 Entry ID: 3262567
2

In a letter dated February 22, 2006, the United States represented the proposed

168-month sentence would not undermine the goals of sentencing but acknowledged

the plea agreement reflected a Guidelines calculation error and the low end of Rivera's

imprisonment range should have been 188 months which reflects an offense level of

thirty-five with a Category II criminal history. 

-2-

On October 20, 2004, a grand jury returned a four-count indictment charging

Rivera with drug and firearm crimes. On August 4, 2005, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), a plea agreement was filed with the court in which

Rivera agreed to plead guilty to the drug conspiracy count of the indictment, cooperate

with the government, and waive certain rights in exchange for the government's

promise to drop the remaining charges. The parties agreed Rivera should be

imprisoned for 168 months. On August 5, 2005, consistent with the plea agreement,

Rivera pleaded guilty to the drug conspiracy count. Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(3), the

district court accepted Rivera's guilty plea but deferred acceptance of the plea

agreement pending review of the presentence report (PSR). The PSR recommended

a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) advisory imprisonment range of 235-293

months which reflects an offense level of thirty-seven with a Category II criminal

history. 

On February 28, 2006, the district court rejected the plea agreement explaining:

(1) the 168-month plea agreement sentence fell twenty months below the low end of

the most lenient advisory Guidelines calculations2

 and sixty-seven months below the

low end of the range recommended in the PSR; and (2) Rivera's co-defendant and

brother, regarded by the PSR preparer and at least one witness as similarly culpable,

was sentenced to 292 months imprisonment following a jury trial. The district court

determined the plea agreement lacked a "justifiable reason," within the meaning of

Guideline § 6B1.2(c)(2)(A), to depart from the advisory Guideline range as stated in

the PSR. The district court informed Rivera of his right to withdraw his guilty plea.

Appellate Case: 06-2940 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/26/2006 Entry ID: 3262567
-3-

On May 24, 2006, the United States and Rivera filed a new, non-cooperation

plea agreement based on an offense level of thirty-five with a Category II criminal

history; the parties agreed Rivera should be sentenced within a Guidelines range of

188-235 months. At a July 12, 2005 plea and sentencing hearing, the district court

accepted the second plea agreement after determining Rivera's guilty plea was

knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court sentenced Rivera to a term of 188

months imprisonment.

On appeal, Rivera contends the district court failed to appropriately consider

the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in rejecting the first plea agreement. While

he concedes the Guidelines range "is a starting point" and an important sentencing

factor for consideration of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, Rivera argues a court "must

vary" from the Guidelines where other § 3553(a) factors would render a sentence

within the Guidelines unreasonable. He also asserts the district court improperly

"entered the plea bargaining process" when it adopted the PSR's facts and conclusions

and determined the first plea agreement would create a disparity between Rivera's

proposed sentence and his brother's sentence and undermine the Guidelines.

"Whether to approve or reject a plea agreement is a matter confided to the

sound discretion of the trial court" which is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Nicholson, 231 F.3d 445, 451 (8th Cir. 2000). Rivera does not contend the

district court participated in any of the discussions between the United States and

Rivera which preceded the entry of the first plea agreement. Presented with the first

plea agreement, the district court did not modify it in any way but rejected it in its

entirety, gave Rivera the opportunity to change his plea, and directed the parties to

inform the court of how they intended to proceed. Thus, we find the district court did

not meddle in the plea bargaining process. 

We need not and do not reach any of the other issues Rivera presents for

review. Rivera chose to affirm his guilty plea and enter into the second plea

agreement which called for a sentencing range of 188-235 months. The district court

Appellate Case: 06-2940 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/26/2006 Entry ID: 3262567
-4-

sentenced Rivera to a term at the lowest end of this range. Rivera does not contest the

district court's finding he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily agreed to the

second plea agreement. Therefore, regardless of whether the district court properly

rejected the first plea agreement, Rivera's second plea agreement was made with a full

understanding of the possible consequences and therefore cured any prejudice possible

from the first proceeding. See United States v. Walker, 927 F.2d 389, 391 (8th Cir.

1991) (noting a defendant's "subsequent action of entering into a plea agreement cured

any potential prejudice from the first [plea agreement] proceeding"); United States v.

Olesen, 920 F.2d 538, 543 (8th Cir. 1990) ("If the district court had merely rejected

the agreement and allowed the parties to renegotiate, this court could have affirmed

the sentence based on the subsequent plea agreement."); cf. United States v. Nguyen,

46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) ("A defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes

himself to a specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal.").

 Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2940 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/26/2006 Entry ID: 3262567