# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d M ar ch 24, 20 10 Deci ded M ar ch 31, 20 10 B efo re FR A N K H . E A ST E R B R O O K, Chie f Judg e A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09
- 2536 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. R AF AE L P AR R I L L A, D ef endant-Appellant. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s, Eas te r n Di vi si o n. N o. 06 C R385 -3 J o hn W
. Da r r ah, Judg e .

O R D E R Raf aelPar ri l l a pl eaded gui l ty to conspi ra cy to posse ss m etham phetam i ne with i ntent to dist ribute a nd was sente nced to 59 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. He fi l ed a no ti ce o f ap p ea l, b u t h is a p p oin te d law ye r m ov es to w ith d ra w on th e g ro u n d th atth e a p p ea l is friv olo u s. SeeAnd ers v. C alif ornia , 38 6 U.S
. 73 8 ( 1967 )
. Par ri l l a has notr esponded to c ou n se l’s m ot ion
. See C IR . R. 51 (b ). W e lim it ou r re vie w to th e p ot en tia l issu es id en tifie d in NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 2536 Page 2

c ou n se l’s fa c ially ad eq u at e b rie f. See U nited Sta tes v. C a no -R o drig uez , 55 2 F
. 3d 637, 63 8 ( 7th C ir. 20 09 ). Pa rri ll a, along w ith A lm a M atias an d tw o other C hicag o residen ts, arran ged f or a so ur ce i n Nev ada t o s hi p the m meth amphet ami ne . T he y wer e ca ughta fte rthe s ec o nd sh i pm en t an d c ha r g ed wi thc o ns pi r ac y a nd o ne s ubs ta nt i ve c o unto fpo ss es si o n wi thi nt en t to d ist rib u te . See 21 U. S
. C. § § 84 6, 8 41 ( a) ( 1)
. P ar r i l l a en te r ed i nt o a pl eaa g r ee m en t an d pr o m i se d t o c o o per at e wi ththe g o ve r nm en t’ s i nv es ti g at i o n o fHum be r to Es pi na, the p u rp or te d N ev ad a s ou rc e, inex c h an ge for d ism iss al of t h e s u b st an tiv e c ou n t a n d a sp ec ific se n te n c e b elo w th e g u id elin es im p ris on m en t ra n ge . SeeF ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(c)( 1)(C). Parr i l l a t est i fi ed befor e a gr and j ury and rec ounted a tr i p he and M ati as m ade to Las Vegas to buy drugs
. Accordi ng to Par ri l l a, Espina sol d him an “ 8-bal l ” o f m etham phetam i ne duri ng the tr i p and p ro cured a sm al lam ount o fm etham phetam i ne for M ati as. Par ri l l a a l so sai d that he , M ati as, and Espina disc ussed Espina supp l yi ng the m drugs in the future. F i nal l y, Par ri l l a s tat ed that Espina l ate r sent seve ra lpacka ges o f m etham phetam i ne, i ncl ud i ng the packa ge that w as i nter cepted byautho ri ti es and l ed to the c o- conspi ra tor s’ ar re st, to M ati as. In parto n thi s ba si s, the gov er nm ent s ecure d an i nd i ctm ent a gainst Espi na. Bu t Par ri l l a l i ed to i nvest i gat or s a nd to the gr and j ury about the i denti ty ofthe coconspi ra tor s’ so urce i n N evada. F or ensi c ev i dence l i nked not Espina, but an as soc i ate n am ed N om ar Fid el C as tr o t o th e s h ip p ed p ac ka ge . A fte r h is gr an d j u ry te st im on y, P ar rilla changed hi s s tory s eve ra lti m es, fi rs t di scl ai m i ng per sonalkno w l edge about w ho obtained th e dr ug s f o rM at i as dur i ngthe La s Ve g as t r i p o rs en t th e pac k ag e to he ri n Chi ca g o b ut l ate r cl ai m i ng tha t Cast ro ( and not Espi na) was the sour ce. In l ate r proffer s, Par ri l l a a l so re canted hi s t est i m ony that he, M ati as, and Espina had discuss ed Espina pr ovi ding them drugs in the future and his te sti m ony that he bo ught an “8-bal l ” fro m Espina w hi l e in Las Vegas. A s a r esul t o fthes e di scr epanci es, the gov er nm ent dr opped it s pendingchar ges aga i nst Espi na, ci ti ng Par ri l l a’ s unre l i abi l i ty as a g ove rnm ent witness, and l ate r m ove d to void P arril la’s gu il ty p lea and plea agreem en t, atta ch ing as evid en ce P arril la’s gran d j ury te st i m o ny . T he di st r i ctc o ur t he l d a he ar i ngo n the g o ve r nm en t’ s m o ti o n. T he g o ve r nm en t did notcal lany w i tness es, but sto od on i ts m oti on a fterbr i efar gum ent. Par ri l l a di d not re quest a n evi denti ar y hea ring; i nstea d, he ar gued that he had al w ays bee n tr uthfulwith th e g o ve r nm en t an d tha t th e di sc r epa nc i es the g o ve r nm en t i den ti fi ed wer e th e r es ul t o fthe govern m en t’s f ocu s on E sp ina an d not C astro. T he district cou rt grante d the gove rnm en t’s m o ti o n, a nd Pa r r i l l a l at erpl ea ded g ui l tya g ain t o the c o ns pi r ac y c ha r g e, thi s ti m e wi th o ut any c o ns i der at i o n fr o m the g o ve r nm en t. T he pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce ri nt er vi ewe d a n a g en t whoN o. 09
- 2536 Page 3

m etw ith P ar rilla d u rin g h is p ro ffer s a n d inc lu d ed h is c om m en ts in t h e p re se n te n c e re p or t. The age nt st ate d that Pa rr i l l a ini ti al l y c l ai m ed pers onalkno w l edge o fM ati as’ deal i ngs with Espina b o thi n La s Ve g as a nd l at eri n Chi ca g o . He al so s ta te d tha t Pa r r i l l a f ai l ed to t el lthe g o ve r nm en t th atM at i as was c o m m uni ca tingwi thCa st r o r athe rtha n Es pi na r eg ar di ngthe dr ugs hi pm en ts . P ar r i l l a di d no t o bj ec t to the i nc l us i o n o fthe a g en t’ s st at ement s i n the p re se n te n c e re p or t. T h e g u id elin es im p ris on m en t ra n ge w as 97to 12 1 m on th s, b u t, in selecting a term of 59 m ont hs ( 1 m ont h be low the sta tu tory m inim um ), the d istri ct cou rt gave Par ri l l a 3 8 m onths’ cr edi t forti m e s er ved on a di schar ged federa lse ntence i n a r el ate d c as e. SeeU .S.S.G §§ 5G 1.3 cm t n .4, 5K 2.2 3. Parr i l l a has noti nd i cate d that he wishes to chal l enge hi s guil ty ple a, and so co unsel appr o pr i at ely r efr ains fr o m di sc us singthe v o l unt ar i ne ss o fthe pl eao rthe a dequa cyo fthe p lea co lloq u y. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox, 28 7 F
. 3d 667, 67 0–72 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. Counsel i ns te ad i den ti fi es o nl y o ne po te nt i ali ss ue f o ra ppea l : whethe rPa r r i l l a co ul d a r g ue tha t he d id n ot viol ate th e term s of his p lea bargain an d thu s it w as error to grant th e govern m en t’s m ot ion to vo id th e a gr ee m en t. B u t p lea ag re em en ts fu n c tio nas co n tr ac ts , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kel ly, 337F.3d 89 7, 90 1 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lezi ne, 166 F.3d 895 , 901 (7th C ir. 19 99 ), an d a d efe n d an t’s su b st an tia l bre ac hfree s th e g ov er n m en t t o v oid th e d ea l, Kel ly, 33 7 F. 3d at 901. The g ove rnm ent ne ed onl y pr ove a substa nti albr each b y apre pond er ance of th e e vid en c e t o p re va il onsu c ha m ot ion
. SeeKelly, 337F.3d 89 7; U nited Sta tes v. Fra z ier, 21 3 F.3 d 40 9, 41 9 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ). Cou ns eli s co r r ec t th ata nya r g um en t th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed byi nv al i dat i ngthe pl eaa g r ee m en t woul d b e fr i vo l o us . T he di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o n was no t cl ea re r r o r ; the chro nol ogyo fev ents est abl i shes that Parr i l l a was not
— as re quir ed by the pl ea ag r ee m en t—co m pl et ely t r uthfulwi ththe g o ve r nm en t. In i ts mot i o n t o v ac at e th e pl eaa nd th e s u b se qu en t h ea rin g, th e g ov er n m en t a rg u ed th at, d u rin g p ro ffer s m ad e a fte r for en sic ev i den ce b el i ed Pa r r i l l a’ s g r an d j ur y t es ti m o nya g ains t Espina, Pa r r i l l a’ s st o r y abo utwho supp l i ed the m etham phetam i ne to M ati as changed se ver alti m es, shi fti ng in f ocus fro m Espina t o Ca st r o . P ar r i l l a’ s pl eaa g r ee m en t r equi r ed hi m t o pr o vi de “c o m pl et e an d t r uthful in for m at ion ” in co op er at in g b u t h is s h iftin g s to rie s u n d er m in ed h is u se fu ln es s a s a w itn es s. A s a r esul t, the gov er nm ent det er m i ned that i t co uld no l onge r bring char ges ag ai nst e i ther Espina o r Castr o. Though adi sputed al l ega ti on o fsubst anti albr each gener al l y c an be re so lve d on ly b y h old in g a nev id en tia ry h ea rin g, see Fraz ier, 213 F.3d at41 9, P ar rilla ac qui es ce d t o the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co ns i der at i o n o fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s m o ti o n o n b r i efi nga nd ar g um en t an d di d no t r eque sta ful le vi den ti ary he ar i ng, c ho o singi ns te ad to a r g ue tha t th e g o ve r nm en t’ s ac co untwas no t i nc o ns i st en t wi thhi s o wn. He ca nno t no w obj ec t to the m an n er in w h ich th e d ist ric t c ou rtco n sid er ed th e e vid en c e. SeeU nite d States v. E rvin , 54 0 F.3d 623 , 630-31 (7th C ir. 2008).N o. 09
- 2536 Page 4

W e al so no te tha t Pa r r i l l a r ec ei ve d a s en te nc e sh o r te rtha n the 6 0- m o nth mi ni m um he shou ld h ave rece ived i n li gh t of U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cr uz , 595 F.3d 74 4, 74 6-4 7 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ). That cas e ho l ds that, al though a se ntenci ng co urt m ay re du ce adefendant’s se ntence base d on tim e a d efe n d an t h as se rv ed on a re lat ed , d isc h ar ge d p ris on se n te n c e, see U. S
. S
. G. § 5K 2.23, the cou rt m ay noti n so d oing red uc e the l ater sen ten ce below a statu tory m in im u m . Cru z , 59 5 F
. 3d at 746- 47. But the go vernm ent di d not fi l e a cr oss - appeal o n that i s s ue , a nd s o we l e a v e P a r r i l l a ’ s s e nt e nc e u nd i s turb e d. A ccor dingly, we GRAN T c o un s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi thd r a w a nd DI SMI SS th e a p p ea l.