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 o. 09- 2642

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J UAN MOTA , A ppel l ant

_____________ O n A pp eal from the D i stri ctC ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s ( D . C . N os . 3- 00- cr - 00722- 001 and 3- 04- cv- 00071)

D i s tr i ctJ udge: C ur t i s V . G om ez

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay6, 2010 B e f o re : S M IT H , C H A G A R E S a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui t Judges . ( Fi l ed: M ay11, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . J uan M ot a appe al s fr om a j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands of the U ni t ed St at es s ent enci ng hi m t o t en y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . H i s att orneyhas 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 ( 1967) , and Thi r d C i r cui tL ocalT h e re c o rd c o n ta in s n o d ry w e ig h t f o r t h e d ru g s . 1 C o u n t tw o a lleg e d th a t M o ta a n d S a n to “ d id k n o w in g lyp o ss e ss w ith in ten t to 2 di s tr i but e more than fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne” i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841. ( A pp. at 3 ). 2 A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) cl ai m i ng thatthi s appea l pr es ent s no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues and s eeki ng l eave t o w i thdr aw . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t o f

s e n te n c e a n d g ra n t c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w . I . Backg r ound O n N o v em b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 0 , M o ta an d h is co -co n sp ir ator, Jesu s E sp ir it o S an to, w ere a rre ste d a f

ter U n ited S tate s C u sto m s a g e n ts f o iled th e ir a ttem p t to sm u g g le c o c a in e in to the V i r gi n I s l ands on a s m al l m ot orboat . T hei rarr es t s occurr ed af t era br i ef c has e, dur i ng w h ich th e v e ss e l th e yh a d b e e n u sin g c o lli d e d w ith a c ra f t o p e ra ted b yC u sto m s a g e n ts and then fi l l ed w i th w at erand caps i zed. T he age nt s eventual l yr etr i eved the men and 160 br i cks of coc ai ne fr om the w at er . I n al l , the coc ai ne w ei ghed appr oxi m at el y191 k ilo g ra m s w h e n w e t. 1 B oth m en w er e named as defe ndant s i n a tw o- counti ndi ctm entfi l ed i n the D i s tr i ct C o u rt. M o ta a n d S a n to e n ter e d in to p lea n e g o tiatio n s w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t an d u lti m a tely agr eed t o pl ead gui l tyt o countone, w hi ch cha r ged both m en w i th “know i ngl yand i n t e n t i o n a l l yc o n s p i r [ i n g ] . . . t o p o s s e s s wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e mo r e th a n f i v e k i l o g r a ms of coc ai ne” i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841 and 846. ( A pp. at2. ) T he governm ent a g re e d to d ism iss th e se c o n d c o u n t. 2T he pl ea a gr eementw as exec ut ed pur s uantt o R ul e 11( e) ( 1) ( C ) of the Feder al R ul es 3 o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re . T h e p ro v isio n g o v e rn in g th e a g re e m e n t n o w a p p e a rs a t R u le 1 1 (c )(1 )(C ) a n d sta tes : [ A ] p le a a g re e m e n t m a ys p e c if yth a t a n a tto rn e yf

o r t h e g o v e rn m e n t w ill ... a g re e th a t a s p e c if

ic s e n ten c e o r se n ten c in g ra n g e is th e a p p ro p ria te di s pos i t i on of the ca s e, orthata part i cul arpr ovi s i on of the Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s, o r p o licysta tem e n t, or se n ten c in g f a c to r d o e s o r d o e s n o t ap p ly (su c h a re c o m m e n d a tio n o r re q u e st b in d s th e c o u rt o n c e th e c o u rt a c c e p ts th e p le a a g re e m e n t.) . F ED . R. C R IM . P. 1 1 (c)(1)(C ) 3 T h e o ff en se to w h ich M o ta an d S an to p led g u il tyca rri ed w ith ita m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence of t en y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm entand a maxi m um s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . A s partof the pl ea a gr eement , the governm entagr eed t o r ecomm end a s ent ence of t en y ear s . T he pl ea a gr eement , i ncl udi ng the s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on, w as t o be bi ndi ng ats ent enci ng, pr ovi ded thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tacc ept ed the pl ea. 3 T h e D istri ct C o u rtac ce p ted th e p lea a n d instructed the p rob ati o n o ff ice to p rep are a pr e- s ent ence r eportpr i ort o t he s ent enci ng hear i ng. D ur i ng the pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on, M ot a t ol d t he pr obat i on offi certhathe w as i n fac ti nnocent . H e cl ai m ed th a t, on th e n ig h t o f

h is a rre st, h e h a d n o t b e e n p re se n t o n th e b o a t ca rry in g th e ill icit d ru g s b u t h a d a c tu a llyb e e n f ish in g in a n o th e r b o a t w ith a f rie n d . H e in d ica ted th a t h is fi s hi ng boatw as i nadvert ent l ydes tr oy ed bythe C us t om s agent s dur i ng thei rpur s ui tof the actual drug s m uggl er s and that , w hen the age nt s pul l ed hi m fr om the w at er , they4

m i s t akenl yi dent i fi ed hi m as the per s on theyhad bee n chas i ng. T he ac tual s m uggl er s , he c la im e d , s u c c e s s f

u lly e lu d e d th e a g e n ts . A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , the D istric t C o u rt e x p re ss e d c o n c e rn o v e r th e sta tem e n ts thatM ot a had made t o t he pr obat i on offi cer . H ow ever , M ot a di d notr eques tt o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea, nordi d he as s ertt o the C our tthathe w as i nnocentof the cr i m e t o w hi ch he had pl ed gui l ty . Fur ther , couns el forboth M ot a and the governm entagr eed thatthe evi dence agai ns tM ot a w as “overw hel m i ng” ( A pp. at61, 63) and thatno bas i s exi s t ed for th e w ith d ra w a l o f

h is p le a . D ur i ng hi s al l ocut i on, M ot a expr es s ed di s pl eas ur e w i th hi s tr i al couns el and s t at ed thathe w ant ed t o be r epr es ent ed ats ent enci ng byanotheratt orneyw hom he had a l r eady cont act ed. H ow ever , thatatt orneyw as notactual l ypr es entatthe hea r i ng, and nei ther M ot a norhi s couns el of r ecor d coul d i dent i fyanyr eas on w arr ant i ng s ubs t i tut i on of couns el . T her efor e, the C our tdeni ed the r eques tand s ent ence d M ot a t o a t erm of im p ri s o n m e n t o f

te n y e a rs , in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e p le a a g re e m e n t. M o ta w is h e d to a p p e a l, b u t h is tr ia l a tto rn e yf a ile d to d o s o in a tim e ly m a n n e r. M ot a fi l ed a pro se m ot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 cl ai m i ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconduct ed a he ar i ng i n connec t i on w i th thatm ot i on, at w hi ch M ot a w as r epr es ent ed bya s econd a t t orney . T he C our tgr ant ed M ot a’ s m ot i on , r es ent ence d hi m , and he then fi l ed thi s t i m el yappea l . T her eaf t er , M ot a’ s s econd a t t orneyT h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 a n d 4 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 1 2 (a ). 4 J u ri s d ic tio n in th is C o u rt is p ro p e r p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . 5 fi l ed the A nd ers br i ef be for e us now , cl ai m i ng thatno non- fr i vol ous i s s ues r emai n t o be h e a rd o n a p p e a l a n d s e e k in g le a v e to w ith d ra w . I I . D i s cus s i on 4 U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) , “[w ] her e, upon r evi ew of the di s tr i ctcourtr ecor d, couns el i s per s uaded that[an] appea l pr es ent s no i s s ue of e ven a rg u a b le m e rit, c o u n se l m a yf ile a m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d su p p o rtin g b rie f p u rsu a n t to A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia . ” I n cons i der i ng w hethert o gr antthe r el i ef s oughtbyan A nd ers b ri e f , o u r i n q u ir yis “ tw o f

o ld : ( 1 ) w h e th e r c o u n s e l a d e q u a te ly f u lf ille d th e ... req u ir em en ts [o f R u le 10 9 . 2 (a)]; an d (2) w h ethe r an ind ep en d en t r ev iew o f th e re co rd pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T o s at i s fyR ul e 109. 2( a) , an A nd ers br i ef must( 1) “s at i s fythe courtthatcouns el has thor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d i n s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues , ” and ( 2) “expl ai n w hy the i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” Id . C ouns el has s ubm i t t ed t o ourC our ta s event een- page br i ef, compl et e w i th ci t at i ons t o t he r ecor d, r ecount i ng the fa ctual and pr ocedur al backgr ound o f th e c a se . T h e b rie f

c o n v in c e s u s th a t co u n se l h a s th o ro u g h lye x a m in e d th e re c o rd in s e a rc h o f a p p e a la b le is s u e s .6

C o u n se l’s in sp e c tio n o f th e re c o rd led h im to id e n tifyth re e p o ten tiallya p p e a lab le iss u e s: (1 ) w h e th e r M o ta w a s u n a w a re o f th e im p lica tio n s a ss o c iate d w ith h is c h o ice to pl ead gui l ty , thus r ender i ng hi s pl ea de fi ci ent ; ( 2) w hetherthe C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on byfai l i ng t o conducta more s ear chi ng i nqui ryi nt o M ot a’ s gui l taft erhe i ndi cat ed t o the p ro b a tio n o f

f ic e r t h a t h e w a s in n o c e n t; a n d (3 ) w h e th e r t h e s e n te n c e w a s re a s o n a b le . C ou nsel ’s A nd ers b ri e f

a d e q u a te ly illu s tr a te s th e f ri v o lity o f

e a c h o f th e s e is s u e s . C ouns el fi r s tcont ends , and w e agr ee, thatM ot a’ s pl ea c oul d nots uppor ta nonf riv o lo u s a p p e a l b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt c o n d u c ted a sa tisf a c to ryc o llo q u yp u rsu a n t to R ul e 11 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, w hi ch i l l us tr at es thatM ot a’ s pl ea w a s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry. See P arke v . R al ey , 5 0 6 U .S . 2 0 , 2 8 (1 9 9 2 ) (e x p lain in g th a t, to b e v a lid , a “ g u iltyp lea m u st b e b o th k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar y .”). M o ta c o n c e d e d th a t h is p lea w a s h is “ o w n f

re e a n d v o lu n tar ya c t” ( A p p . at 5 0 ), an d th e C o u rt e n su re d th a t M o ta under s t ood hi s tr i al r i ght s befor e ac cept i ng hi s gui l typl ea. M ot a coul d notm ai nt ai n an appea l chal l engi ng the val i di tyof hi s pl ea be caus e the col l oquys how s thathe under s t ood th e v a rio u s o p tio n s a v a ilab le to h im a n d , in lig h t o f th a t k n o w led g e , ch o se to p lea d g u ilty a n yw a y . See P ark , 506 U . S. at29 ( i ndi cat i ng thata know i ng and vol unt arypl ea i s one that“r epr es ent s a vol unt aryand i nt el l i gentchoi ce a m ong the al t ernat i ve cour s es of ac t i on o p e n to th e d e f

e n d a n t” (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d )) . W e al s o concurw i th couns el ’ s as s es s m entthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterrby pr ocee di ng w i th s ent enci ng des pi t e M ot a’ s s udden cl ai m of i nnocenc e t o the pr obat i on7

o f f ic e r. T h e g o v e rn m e n t’ s e v id e n c e p la c e d M o ta re d -h a n d e d a t th e s c e n e o f th e c ri m e . A fter a b o at ch ase d estroy ed the v esse l w ith in w h ich M o ta an d h is co -co n sp ir ator w ere tr avel i ng, C us t om s agent s pul l ed hi m fr om the w at er , w her e he ha d been f l oat i ng al ongs i de 160 br i cks of coc ai ne. I ndeed, hi s tr i al couns el pr oper l ydes cr i bed the evi dence agai ns thi m as “overw hel m i ng. ” ( A pp. at61. ) M or eover , M ot a admi t t ed t o thi s cr i m i nal c o n d u c t at th e tim e o f

h is g u iltyp lea a n d n e v e r a c tu a llya ss e rte d h is in n o c e n c e d ire c tlyto the C our t . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , the D i s tr i ctC our thad no ca us e t o bel i eve thatany f a ira n d ju s t r e a s o n e x is te d f o r t h e w ith d ra w a l o f

M o ta ’s g u ilty p le a . See F ED . R. C R IM . P. 11( d) ( “A defe ndantm ayw i thdr aw a pl ea of gui l ty. . . aft erthe courtacc ept s the pl ea, but befor e i ti m pos es s ent ence i f . . . the def endantcan s how a fa i rand j us tr eas on for re q u e stin g th e w ith d ra w a l.”); U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 336 F. 3d 245, 252 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( expl ai ni ng thata courtm us tcons i derthr ee f act or s w hen det erm i ni ng w hethera fa i rand j us tr eas on forw i thdr aw al exi s t s : “( 1) w hetherthe def endantas s ert s hi s i nnocenc e; ( 2) the s tr ength of the def

endant ’ s r eas ons forw i thdr aw i ng the pl ea; and ( 3) w hetherthe g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld b e p re ju d ic e d b yth e w ith d ra w a l.” ). Fi nal l y , couns el ar gues thatM ot a’ s s ent ence w as r eas onabl e bec aus e M ot a and the g o v ern m en t st ipu lat ed to the statu torym inim u m sen tenc e o f ten y ea rs. T h e C o u rt acc ept ed thats t i pul at i on atthe gui l typl ea c ol l oquyand s ent ence d M ot a i n acc or dance w ith it; th e re f

o re , it b e c a m e b in d in g o n th e C o u rt . See U nited S tates v. B ernard , 373 F. 3d 399, 344 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng that“[o] nce the D i s tr i ctC our thas acc ept ed [a pl ea8

agr eementunderR ul e 11( e) ( 1) ( C ) ] , i ti s bi ndi ng. ”) . T hi s s ent ence w as r eas onabl e i n l i ght of the quant i tyof drugs w i th w hi ch M ot a w as appr ehende d and the pos s i bi l i tythathe c o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d a lif e s e n te n c e f

o r h is o f f e n s e . N otonl yar e w e per s uaded bycouns el ’ s r eas oni ng thathe has s at i s fi ed the r equi r ement s of R ul e 109. 2( a) , but , aft erconduct i ng ourow n i ndepende ntr evi ew of the re c o rd , w e a re u n a b le to id e n tifya n yo th e r p o ten tiallyn o n -f riv o lo u s is su e to a d d re ss . It i s th e r e f o r e a p p r o p r i a t e t o a l l o w c o u n s e l t o wi th d r a w. I I I . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the s ent ence i m pos ed on M ot a bythe D is tr ic t C o u rt a n d w ill g ra n t c o u n s e l’ s re q u e s t to w ith d ra w .