2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-16-2008 

# U SA v . Robles P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3519

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ro b le s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1738. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1738

### The Honor abl e J ane A. Re s t ani , Chi e f Judge of the Uni t e d St at e s Court of * 

### I nt e rnat i ona lTr a de , s i tt i ng by de s i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 05- 3519 & 06- 1261 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RA FA EL R O BL ES,

A ppel l antN o. 05- 3519 A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 02- cr - 00552- 4) D i s t r i ctC our t : H on. C ynthi a M . R ufe

_____________________________________________

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. CA RL OS L . S OT O,

A ppel l antN o. 06- 1261 A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 03- cr - 00173- 7) D i s t r i ctC our t : H on. R . B ar cl aySur r i ck Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February26, 2007 B e f o re : M c K E E a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges a n d R E S T A N I , C hi ef

Judge *

### 2 ( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary16, 2008)

OP I NI ON M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge . R afa el R obl es and C ar l os Sot o appea l the s ent ence s thatw er e i m pos ed fol l ow i ng th e ir g u iltyp lea s f

o r v io latin g f

e d e ra l d ru g law s. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill aff i r m bot h s ent ence s . I nas m uch as w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i ar w i t h t hei rcas es , w e nee d nots etfor t h t he fa ctual backgr ound orpr ocedur al hi s t or i es exce pti ns ofaras m aybe hel pful t o ourbr i ef di s cus s i on. I . D i s cus s i on R o b le s ’s a n d S o to ’s a p p e a ls a re re la te d to a th ir d c a s e , U ni t ed Stat es v. C as tr o ( N o. 0 6 -25 9 6 ), in tha t al l th ree arise o u t of the s am e d rug co n sp ir ac y . S ince E d w ard C astro’s a p p e a l r a i s e s a n i s s u e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e c o c a i n e g u i d e l i n e s , we wi l l h o l d h i s a p p e a l CA V p e n d in g th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 127 S. C t . 2933 ( 2007) . H ow ever , s i nce thati s s ue i s noti nvol ved i n t he appe al of ei t herR obl es orSot o, w e now deci de thos e appe al s . W e addr es s eac h cas e i n turn. A . R af ael R obl es I n hi s pl ea a gr eement , R obl es w ai ved “a l l r i ght s t o appea l orcol l at er al l yat t ack [hi s ] convi ct i on, s ent ence , oranyot herm at t err el at i ng t o t hi s pr os ecut i on. ” R obl es now ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea beca us e: ( 1) t he di s t r i ctj udge s t at ed dur i ng hi s gui l t ypl ea c ol l oquythathe fa ced a

### 3

s t atut or i l ypr es cr i bed mi ni m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entof t en y ear s w hen, i n fac t , he fa ced a s t atut or ym i ni m um of tw enty - fi ve y ear s ; ( 2) the di s t r i ctj udge fa i l ed t o ens ur e thatthe pl ea a gr eementw as ent er ed i nt o know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y ; and ( 3) hi s tr i al couns el r ender ed i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance i n connec t i on t o t he pl ea a gr eement . T he governm ent cont ends t he appe al s houl d be di s m i s s ed forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on i n l i ghtof the w ai verof t he r i ghtt o appea l cont ai ned i n R obl es ’ s pl ea a gr eement . W e agr ee. W ai verof the r i ghtt o appea l cont ai ned i n a gui l t ypl ea de pr i ves us of j ur i s di ct i on o v er a n ap p ea l, so lon g as itis en tered into k n o w ing lyan d v o lun tari lyan d d o es n o t w o rk a m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Khat tak , 2 7 3 F .3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). H ere , R o b les d o es n o t cha ll en g e the v ali d ityo f th e w aive r i n h is plea a g ree m en t. R athe r, h e a ss e rts e rro r o n th e b a sis o f th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is gui l t ypl ea. Si gni fi cant l y , among t he r eas ons R obl es pos i t s i n ar gui ng thatthe di s t r i ct cour ts houl d have pe r m i t t ed hi m t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea i s hi s cl ai m thathe di d not ent eri nt o t he pl ea a gr eementknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y . H e does not , how ever , ar gue that h e d id n o t un d erstan d that h e w as w aivin g h is r igh t t o ap p ea l, n o r do es th e re co rd su p p o rt t h a tc l a i m. T h a t o m iss io n d e p riv e s u s o f ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to w ith d ra w th e g u ilty p le a . Id . H o w e v e r, e v e n if w e a s s u m e , ar

guendo , that R obl es ’ s cont ent i on t hathe di d notent eri nt o t he pl ea a gr eementknow i ngl yand v o lu n tar ilyis s u f

f icie n t to a llo w u s to re v iew th e m e rits o f h is a p p e a l, w e w o u ld still

### 4

aff i r m t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s pet i t i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s pl ea.

“ T h e c o n stitu tio n a l re q u ire m e n t th a t a g u iltyp lea b e ‘k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar y ’ is embodi ed i n Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Schw ei t

z er , 454 F. 3d 197, 202 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng B o y k i n v . A l a b a ma , 3 9 5 U .S . 2 3 8 , 2 4 2 -4 4 (1 9 6 9 )) . Pur s uantt o R ul e 11, t he di s t r i ctj udge must“addr es s the def endantper s onal l yi n open cour t ” and de t erm i ne thathe/ s he under s t ands the panopl yof r i ght s at t endantt o t r i al and th e ra m if ic a tio n s o f

f o rf e itin g th o s e ri g h ts b yp le a d in g g u ilty. F e d . R . C ri m . P . 1 1 (b )( 1 ). T h e re c o rd in th is c a se d e m o n stra tes th a t th e d istric t ju d g e d id th a t. I n par t i cul ar , t he di s t r i ctj udge as ked R obl es i f he unde r s t ood t hatabs entthe pl ea of gui l t yhe coul d appea l a gui l t yver di ctorhi s s ent ence , thathe coul d have a l aw y er r epr es enthi m dur i ng hi s appea l , and thatbypl eadi ng gui l t yunderthe pl ea a gr eementhe for fei t ed hi s r i ghtt o appea l . R obl es s t at ed thathe under s t ood t he ef fec tof w ai vi ng al l of t he ri gh t s outl i ned i n R ule 11, i ncludi ng his ri gh tt o ap peal. M oreove r, even the m ost i m agi nat i ve mi nds w oul d be har d pr es s ed t o fas hi on anyof R obl es ’ s ar gum ent s i nt o a cl ai m t hathi s pl ea a gr eementw or ked a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. T hus , w e mustenfor ce w ai verand di s m i s s R obl es ’ s appea l forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. H ow ever , w e addi t i onal l ynot e thatR obl es ’ s cont ent i on thathe di d notunder s t and t hatpl eadi ng gui l t ycarr i ed a mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence of tw enty - fi ve y ear s l acks m er i t . R obl es s i gned a pl ea a gr eementexpl ai ni ng thatthe cha r ges agai ns thi m carr i ed a m andat or ym i ni m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entt ot al i ng tw enty - fi ve y ear s . T he governm ent

### 5

al s o i nform ed R obl es dur i ng t he cha nge of pl ea he ar i ng thatthe cha r ges he w as pl eadi ng gui l t yt o r equi r ed hi m t o s erve atl eas ttw enty - fi ve y ear s i n pr i s on. Fur t herm or e, dur i ng t he cha nge of pl ea he ar i ng t he courtas ked R obl es w hetherhe under s t ood t he ext entof the penal t i es t he governm enthad expl ai ned, and he r es ponded i n t he af fi r m at i ve. B . C a rlo s S o to C ar l os Sot o’ s or i gi nal s ent ence w as change d aft erw e r emanded forr e- s ent enci ng pur s uantt o U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . O n r emand, R obl es w as r ese n ten c e d to 2 4 0 -m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, w h ich is m o re th a n f o u r y e a rs le ss th a n h is or i gi nal s ent ence . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . So to , N o . 0 3 -cr-17 3 , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 8 1 1 7 7 8 8 (3d C ir . O ct . 27, 2005) A l t hough Sot o has now appea l ed thats ent ence , hi s l aw y erhas fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738, 744 ( 1967) , and s erved a c opyof that br i ef on hi s cl i ent . I n t he br i ef, couns el cont ends thatther e i s no bas i s foran appe al and s e e k s to w ith d ra w f

ro m th e c a s e . A nd ers sta tes : “[ I]f c o u n se l f

in d s h is c a se to b e w h o lly fr i vol ous , aft era cons ci ent i ous exami nat i on of i t , he s houl d s o advi s e the courtand r eques tperm i s s i on t o w i t hdr aw . ” Id . a t 7 4 4 . C o u n se l is n e v e rth e les s re q u ire d to su b m it a “br i ef r efe r r i ng t o anyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d t hatm i ghtar guabl ys uppor tthe appe al ” w i t h t he m o tio n to w ith d ra w . Id . M o re o v e r, w e h a v e id e n tifie d tw o o b lig a tio n s th a t ap p e llate co u n sel m u st sati sfyu n d er A nd ers : ( 1) he/ s he must“s at i s fythe courtthathe ors he has t ho rough l yscoured the r ecord i n search of a pp eal able i ssues” and (2) he/ she “m ust

### 6

expl ai n w hyt he i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” U n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 211 F. 3d 778, 780 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tabb , 1 2 5 F . 3 d 5 8 3 , 5 8 5 , 5 8 6 ( 7 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . I f we ag ree w ith co u n sel’s co n clus ion that the a p p ea l l ac k s m erit , “w e w il l gran t . . . co u n sel’s A nd ers m o tio n , an d d isp o se o f th e a p p e a l w ith o u t ap p o in tin g n e w c o u n se l.” T h ird C irc u it L .A .R . 1 0 9 .2 (a ). H o w e v e r, if w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re is “ a rg u a b le m e rit to th e a p p e a l, [w e] w i l l di s char ge curr entcouns el , appoi nts ubs t i tut e couns el , r es t or e the ca s e t o t he cal endar , and or ders uppl ement al br i efi ng. ” I d. H ere, app el l at e cou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef s t at es thathe has conduct ed an e xhaus t i ve r evi ew of the r ecor d, and has i dent i fi ed as the onl yar guabl yappea l abl e i s s ue w hethert he di s t r i ctcour tcompl i ed w i t h B ookerw h en rese n tenc ing S o to. C o u n sel arg u es th at S o to’s ap p ea l l ac k s m eritb ec au se, on rem an d , the d istri ct co u rtac k n o w ledg ed that S o to’s o ri g inal sen tenc e o f 2 9 2 m o n ths w as im p o sed o n lyb ec au se th e g u idelines w ere m a n d a to ry . C o u n se l p o in ts to th e d istric t ju d g e ’s a d m iss io n th a t, ha d h e b e e n p e rm itt e d to do s o, he w oul d have s ent ence d Sot o bel ow the mandat oryr ange. C ouns el expl ai ns t hat the d istri ct co u rt ’s sen tenc e, w h ich is o u tsi d e the g u idelines ran g e, ev iden ce s the co u rt ’s under s t andi ng t hatt he gui del i nes ar e no l ongerm andat ory . A ddi t i onal l y , couns el cont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tcons ul t ed the r el evants ent enci ng fac t or s w hen i m pos i ng s ent ence . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatcouns el has s at i s fi ed the pr ocedur al re q u ire m e n ts n e c e ss a ryto su b m it a s u c c e ss f u l A nd ers br i ef. N ext , w e mustdet erm i ne w h e th e r w e a g re e w ith c o u n se l’s c o n ten tio n th a t n o a rg u a b lya p p e a lab le is su e s e x ist.

### 7

Si nce B ooker , ourr evi ew of s ent enci ng deci s i ons has been f or“unr eas onabl enes s . ” B ooker , 543 U . S. at261. “To det erm i ne i f the courtact ed r eas onabl yi n i m pos i ng the r es ul t i ng s ent ence , w e mustfi r s tbe s at i s fi ed the courtexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on by cons i der i ng t he r el evantfac t or s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3d . C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B e y o n d th a t, “w e m u st a lso a sc e rta in w h e th e r th o se f a c to rs w e re re a so n a b ly appl i ed t o t he ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” Id . H er e, w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he di s t r i ctcour tcons i der ed the r el evants ent enci ng fac t or s and r eas onabl yappl i ed them. W hen r es ent enci ng Sot o, the di s t r i ctj udge not ed th a t th e 2 4 0 -m o n th ter m o f im p riso n m e n t: (1 ) “ se rv e s th e e n d s o f ju stic e ” ; (2 ) is s i gni fi cant , butw arr ant ed bec aus e Sot o “ea r ned i t ”; and ( 3) i s bas ed upon Sot o’ s cr i m i nal h ist o ryan d the w ayh e h as “ co n d u cted h is l ife.” F u rth erm o re, w e f ind that tho se f

ac tors w ere r easona blyapp l i ed g i ven S oto’ s guil t yplea t o the m ult i ple drug charges. B ased on t he fo regoi ng , w e agree w i t h ap pell at e cou nsel ’s A nd ers b ri ef that S o to’s a p p e a l lac k s m e rit. T h e re f o re , w e w ill a f

f irm S o to ’s s e n ten c e a n d p e rm it ap p e llate c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w. II. F or the reasons st at ed ab ov e, w e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt s.