Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-10497/USCOURTS-ca9-14-10497-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosa Isela Hernandez-Castro
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ROSA ISELA HERNANDEZ-CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-10497

D.C. No. 

4:13-cr-01577-

CKJ-JR-1

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

November 20, 2015—San Francisco, California

Filed February 25, 2016

Before: Michael J. Melloy,

*

 Sandra S. Ikuta,

and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Melloy

* The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

 Case: 14-10497, 02/25/2016, ID: 9877721, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 1 of 6
2 UNITED STATES V. HERNANDEZ-CASTRO

SUMMARY**

Criminal Law

The panel dismissed an appeal from a sentence in a case

in which the defendant argues that the government breached

her plea agreement, thereby invalidating her appeal waiver.

Reviewing for plain error, the panel held that the

government did not breach the plea agreement by not

objecting when the district court granted only a two-level

departure for fast track instead of the four-level departure set

forth in the plea agreement. The panel distinguished United

States v. Camarillo-Tello, 236 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2001),

because the plea agreement in this case does not indicate that

the government “will recommend” the four-level departure,

and the government did not alter its recommendation at

sentencing. Because the government did not breach the plea

agreement, the panel enforced the appellate waiver.

COUNSEL

Brenda Dabdoub, Tucson, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant.

Christina M. Cabanillas (argued), Assistant United States

Attorney; John S. Leonardo, United States Attorney; Robert

L. Miskell Appellate Chief, Tucson, Arizona, for PlaintiffAppellee.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-10497, 02/25/2016, ID: 9877721, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 2 of 6
UNITED STATES V. HERNANDEZ-CASTRO 3

OPINION

MELLOY, Circuit Judge:

Rosa Hernandez-Castro appeals her sentence of 46

months after pleading guilty to Conspiracy to Possess with

Intent to Distribute Heroin. Hernandez-Castro argues the

district court erred by imposing a two-level downward

departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 (fast track), instead of the

four-level departure set forth in her Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. Hernandez-Castro

further argues the government breached her plea agreement,

thereby invalidating her appeal waiver. We reject

Hernandez-Castro’s arguments, holding the government did

not breach her plea agreement. We therefore enforce her

appeal waiver and dismiss her appeal.

I.

In Hernandez-Castro’s plea agreement, the parties

“stipulate and agree” to a four-level downward departure

based on fast track, U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, and a two-level

enhancement for use of a minor to avoid detection, U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.4. The parties also “stipulate and agree” to a

sentencing range of “57 to 71 months imprisonment if

defendant’s Criminal History Category is I.” At sentencing,

the district court calculated 57 to 71 months as the Guidelines

sentencing range but did not applythe two-level enhancement

for use of a minor to avoid detection, which was rejected in

the PSR. The district court also departed only two levels for

fast track based on the “government’s motion,” although the

government had not actually moved for such a departure. 

Neither party objected to the court’s finding.

 Case: 14-10497, 02/25/2016, ID: 9877721, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 3 of 6
4 UNITED STATES V. HERNANDEZ-CASTRO

The district court then granted Hernandez-Castro an

additional “two-level downward variance” based on an

anticipated amendment to the Drug Quantity Table, resulting

in an offense level of 23 and a sentencing range of 46 to 57

months. Before the court pronounced a sentence, the

government stated that “a sentence at the low end of the

range” of 46 to 57 months would be sufficient. The court

sentenced Hernandez-Castro to 46 months.

Hernandez-Castro filed a Rule 35 motion, which the

district court denied. On appeal, Hernandez-Castro concedes

her Rule 35 motion was based on the mistaken belief that the

court incorrectly applied the two-level enhancement for use

of a minor to avoid detection.

II.

Hernandez-Castro waived her right to appeal her sentence

as part of her negotiated plea agreement if her sentence “is

consistent with” the plea agreement. The plea agreement

provides that “[t]he sentence is in accordance with this

agreement if the sentence imposed is within the stipulated

range or below the stipulated range if the Court grants a

variance.” The district court sentenced Hernandez-Castro to

46 months, which was “below the stipulated range” after the

court “grant[ed] a variance.” Thus, unless an exception to the

appellate waiver applies, Hernandez-Castro waived her right

to appeal. See United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478, 480

(9th Cir. 1991) (rejecting the defendant’s attempt to

circumvent his appeal waiver because the defendant’s

sentence did not exceed the plea agreement’s 36-month cap);

see also United States v. Medina-Carrasco, 806 F.3d 1205,

1209–10 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding that the phrase “in

accordance with” the plea agreement “requires only that the

 Case: 14-10497, 02/25/2016, ID: 9877721, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 4 of 6
UNITED STATES V. HERNANDEZ-CASTRO 5

ultimate sentence fall within the broad range authorized by

the plea agreement” and rejecting the defendant’s alternative

interpretation that “the phrase also could be read to require

that any sentence imposed rest on a correct guidelines

calculation”).

A defendant is released from his or her appeal waiver if

the government breaches the plea agreement. See United

States v. Gonzalez, 16 F.3d 985, 989–90 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Hernandez-Castro argues that the government breached her

plea agreement by not objecting when the district court

granted only a two-level departure for fast track (rather than

the four-level departure in the agreement). We review for

plain error because Hernandez-Castro did not raise this

argument at sentencing. See Puckett v. United States,

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). We conclude no plain error

occurred.

Hernandez-Castro cites United States v. Camarillo-Tello,

236 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2001), in support of her contention. 

In Camarillo-Tello, an illegal re-entry case, the defendant’s

plea agreement provided that “[t]he government will

recommend” a four-level downward adjustment to his offense

level if the defendant stipulated to removal, waived any

appeal, and participated in the fast track program. Id. at 1025

(emphasis added). On appeal, under de novo review, this

Court held the government breached the defendant’s plea

agreement: (1) by failing to include in its sentencing

memorandum all the reasons in the defendant’s plea

agreement for the recommended four-level departure for fast

track; and (2) by failing at sentencing to orally recommend

the four-level departure and instead altering its

recommendation by endorsing a two-level departure. Id. at

1027.

 Case: 14-10497, 02/25/2016, ID: 9877721, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 5 of 6
6 UNITED STATES V. HERNANDEZ-CASTRO

Camarillo-Tello is distinguishable because today we

review for plain error. Unlike the plea agreement in

Camarillo-Tello, Hernandez-Castro’s plea agreement does

not indicate the government “will recommend” the four-level

departure for fast track. Rather, paragraph eight of her plea

agreement provides “the parties stipulate and agree that the

following guideline calculations are appropriate for the

charge for which the defendant is pleading guilty.” That

language is sufficiently distinct from the language obligating

government action in Camarillo-Tello for us to conclude no

plain error occurred here. In addition, the government here

did not alter its recommendation at sentencing. Consistent

with Hernandez-Castro’s plea agreement, the government

recommended “a sentence at the low end of the range” of 46

to 57 months. If anything, the government altered its

recommendation in Hernandez-Castro’s favor by

recommending a sentence at the low end of a range lower

than that provided for in the plea agreement, indicating its

preference for a more lenient, not a “harsher,” sentence. Cf.

Camarillo-Tello, 236 F.3d at 1027 (noting that a prosecutor’s

promise in a plea agreement “is not fulfilled if, while making

the recommendation, the prosecutor contradicts that

recommendation with statements indicating a preference for

a harsher sentence”).

III.

Because we hold the government did not breach

Hernandez-Castro’s plea agreement, we enforce her appellate

waiver and dismiss her appeal.

DISMISSED.

 Case: 14-10497, 02/25/2016, ID: 9877721, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 6 of 6