1

09 -05 76 -cr US A v . A re v al o (Vig il) 1 2 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 3 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 4

_______________________________ 5 6 August Term, 2010 7 8 (Submitt ed: Novembe r 17, 2010 De cided: De cembe r 21, 2010) 9 10 Docke t No. 09-0576-c r 11

_______________________________ 12 1 3 U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA , 14 1 5 Appellee , 16 17 —v.— 18 1 9 J OS E L O PE Z A RE V A LO , a lso kn own a s P A Y A SO , J A V I ER I R HE TA , a lso kn own a s J UAN C AMPOS , 20 a lso kn own a s S PE ED Y , H ECT O R P O RT I LLO , a lso kn own a s C H U CKY , a lso kn own a s A NGEL , LU I S 21 B O N I LLA , a lso kn own a s C H O FRE , LU I S V AL L E B LAN CO , a lso kn own a s A N V IL , F R ANC I S C O 22 V AL L E B LAN CO , also known as W AR DE N H UNT ER , a lso kn own a s S I L EN T , N EL S ON M AUR I C I O 2 3 P OR TI L L O A L AS , a lso kn own a s S N A CK , W I LMER V I N D ELL B ET A N CO , a lso kn own a s D A FFY , also 24 kn own a s N I CA , V I CT O R M E JIA , 25 2 6 De fe nd an ts , 27 2 8 M A N U EL V IG IL , a lso kn own a s J UNI OR , 29 3 0 Defendant- Appellant

. 31

____________________________________ 32 33 B e fo re : J A COBS , Chief Judge , KEARS E and S TR AUB , Circuit Judges

. 34

____________________________________ 35 De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt M anu e l V ig il a

pp e a ls f ro m a jud g me nt o f t

he Un ite d St ate s D istri c t 36 Court for the Ea stern District of N ew Yor k (SterlingJ ohnson, J r., Judge ) convic ting him of 37 conspirac y

to commit murder in aid of ra ckete eringand of usinga fire arm duringa cr ime of2 1 violence. T he g overnme nt argues that Vig il’s appea l should be dismis sed in light of his wa iver 2 of the right to appeal his sentenc e. B eca use we conclude that Vig il’s waiver of the right to 3 appea l prec ludes his claim of F eder al Rule of Criminal Procedur e 32 er ror a nd his claim based on 4 the abse nce of

a Spanish interpre ter duringa portion of his sentenc ing pr ocee ding, w e dismiss the 5 appea l. 6

_________________________________ 7 J AS ON A

. J ONES , Assistant United States Attorney (Susan Corker

y , 8 Assistant United States Attorney , on the brief ), for L oretta E. 9 Ly nch, United States Attorne y , Easter n District of Ne w York, 10 Br ookly n, NY, for Appellee

. 11 1 2 L AURI E S. H ER S HEY , Manhasse t, NY, for Defendant-Appe llant

. 13 _________________________________ 1 4 1 5 S TR AUB , Circuit Judge : 16 De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt M anu e l V ig il a

pp e a ls f ro m a jud g me nt o f t

he Un ite d St ate s D istri c t 17 Court for the Ea stern District of N ew Yor k (SterlingJ ohnson, J r., Judge ) convic ting him, 18 following a guilty plea, of conspirac y

to commit murder in aid of ra ckete ering , in violation of 18 19 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) , and of usinga fire arm duringa cr ime of violence , in violation of 18 U.S.C. 20 § 924(c) (1)( A)(i) . The g overnme nt argues that Vig il’s appea l should be dismis sed on the g round 21 that Vig il’s waiver of the right to appeal his sentenc e for eclose s his claims on appea l. Be cause 22 we c on c lud e that V ig il’ s c la im o f F e de ra l Ru le of Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure 32 e rr or and his c la im 23 based on the absenc e of a Spanish interprete r duringa portion of his sentenc ing pr ocee ding a re 24 fore closed by

Vig il’s appea l waiver , we dismiss the appea l. 2 53 1 BACK GR OUND 2 On Marc h 14, 2008, Manuel Vig il was cha rg ed in a supe rsedingindictment that alleg ed 3 that Vig il, as a member of L a Mar a Salvatruc ha, a g angalso known as “ MS-13,” conspire d to 4 murder unspe cified me mbers of the Bloods g ang . The indictment also cha rg ed two of V igil’s c o5 defe ndants, who we re a lso alleg ed MS-13 member s, with murderingPashad Gra y , a member

of 6 the B loods ga

ng , on or about De cembe r 24, 2006. 7 Vi g il e nte re d into a ple a a g re e me nt w iththe g ov e rnme nt o n M ay 8, 20 08 . T he a g re e me nt 8 stated that Vig il would plead guilty to counts seven a

nd eig ht of the super sedingindictment, 9 which cha

rg ed Vig il with conspiracy to commit murder in aid of ra ckete ering , in violation of 18 10 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) , and with using a fire arm in conne ction with a cr ime of violence , in violation 11 of

18 U. S.C. § 9 24 (c )( 1) (A )( i) . T he a g re e me nt i nc lud e d a n a pp e a l- wa ive r p ro vis ion

that 12 provided that Vig il “ag ree s not to file an appe al or other wise cha lleng e . . . the c onviction or 13 sentenc e in the eve nt that the Court imposes a term of imprisonment of 195 months or below.” 1 4 On M ay

8 , 2 0 0 8 , Vi gi l p l ea d edgu i l ty t o co un t s s ev en an d

ei gh to f t h e s u

p er s ed i n g 15 indictment before a mag istrate judg e in the District Court. A Spanish interpre ter wa s prese nt for 16 the entire ty

of the plea

proce eding . Using the interpre ter, Vig il confirmed that the ple a 17 a g re e me nt h a d b e e n tr ans late d into S pa nis h a nd that he ha d c are fu lly

re vie we d th e a g re e me nt 18 wi th h is l awye r b e fo re signin git. Vi g il a lso state d th at he un de rs too d th at he wa s w a ivi nghis 19 rig ht to appeal a

ny sentenc e of 195 months’ inca rce ration or be low. Duringhis plea allocution, 20 Vig il testified that the fac tual basis for his guilty plea wa s that, sometime in the summer of 2006, 21 he rode in a ca

r with other MS-13 member s, one of whom Vig il knew was c arr ying a g un, while4 1 looking f

or a me mber of the Bloods g angto kill. Vigil did not admit t o actua lly killing a membe r 2 of the B loods ga

ng , nor to killing Pashad Gr ay . 3 Vi g il’ s p re se nte nc e re po rt , p re pa re d o n O c tob e r 2 4, 20 08 , c a lc ulate d V ig il’ s F e de ra l 4 S en t en ci n g Gu i d el i n es ra n ge a s 2 4 0 m o n th s . T h e r ep o rts t at edth atVi gi l fi re d a w eap o nd

uri n g 5 the conspira cy

in question and that he a lso should be held acc ountable for the murder

of Pashad 6 Gra

y . Both Vig il and the g overnme nt objected to the pr esente nce r eport’s Guidelines-ra ng e 7 calc ulation. By

letter dated Fe bruar

y 4, 2009, the g overnme nt informed the Court that the 8 pr e se nte nc e re po rt wa s “ fa c tua lly

inc or re c t” be c a us e the g ov e rnme nt h a d n o e vid e nc e e ith e r t hat 9 V i g i l , o r

an yo n e e l s e , f

i r e d a w e a p o nd ur i n gth e c h ar g e d

c o n s p i r a c y, o r

th atV i g i l w a s i nan y w ay 10 involved in Pashad Gra y ’s murder . Acc ording ly , the g overnme nt informed the Court that the 11 g overnme nt and Vig il ag ree d that the prope r total Guidelines ra ng e wa s 157 to 181 months’ 12 incar cer ation. 13 Vig il was sentenc ed by the District Court on Fe bruar y 5, 2009. At the beg inning of the 14 sentenc ing pr ocee ding, no Spanish interpr eter was pre sent. Duringthis portion of the 15 pr oc e e din g , th e g ov e rnme nt a g a in i nf or me d th e Di str ic t Co ur

t th at bo th t

he g ov e rnme nt a

nd Vi g il 16 disag ree d with the prese ntence repor t’s Guidelines-r ang e ca lculation. Th e Court re sp on de d: 17 “Oka

y . All rig ht.” The Court then discussed the proper Guidelines ra

ng e with the par

ties and 18 briefly

discussed whe ther Vig il was seekinga below- Guidelines sentenc e. The Court then a sked 19 Vig il if he had re ad the pr esente nce r eport a nd if he wa s rea dy

for se ntencing . Vig il responded 20 “[y ]es” to both questions, without the aid of a n interpre ter. At that point, Vig il’s counsel told the 2 1 C o urtth ath e b e l i e v e d th atV i g i l h a d

u s e d a S p an i s hi n t e r

p r e t e r i nth e p a s tan d

s t at e d th at : “ I5 1 thi nk

it m ig ht b e a

little bit be tte r u nd e r t he c ir c ums tanc e s, thi s is a c on te ste d s itu atio n, it m ig ht 2 be best if we had an inter prete r.” The District Court then paused the proce eding s until a Spanish 3 interpre ter wa s prese nt. After r esuming , the Court repe ated its two questions with the aid of the 4 int e rp re te r a

nd ult ima te ly se nte nc e d V ig il t o a

tot a l of 15 7 mo nth s’ inc arc e ratio n. Th e Di str ic t 5 Court made no dete rminations or finding s of fa ct conc erningthe disputed portions of the 6 prese ntence repor

t and did not append a

ny deter minations to t he pre sentenc e re port, as re quired 7 by Rule 32(i)(3) (B ) and ( C). 8 Vig il filed a pro se notice of a ppeal on F ebrua

ry 10, 2009. On Marc h 9, 2009, the 9 g ov e rnme nt m ov e d to dis mis s V ig il’ s a pp e a l in light o f t he a pp e a l w a ive r c onta ine d in Vi g il’ s 10 plea a g ree ment. In response , Vig il’s trial counsel soug ht to be relieve d by filing a brief 11 purportedly

in acc ordanc e with United States v. Gom ez-Pe rez , 215 F.3d 315 ( 2d Cir. 2000), and 1 2 An de rs v . Ca lif

or nia , 3 86 U. S. 7 38 (1 96 7) , b ut w e de e me d th at br ie f d e fi c ie nt. Af te r V ig il’ s 13 counsel fa iled to comply with our subsequent orde rs to cure the flaw ed An de rs brief, w e dire cted 14 the Cle rk

to a pp oint ne w a

pp e llate c ouns e l. We a lso de nie d th e g ov e rnme nt’ s mo tio n to dis mis s 15 without prejudice to re newa l upon the appointment of newcounsel. Vig il’s new appe llate 16 counsel then f

iled a brie f on appe al askingthat the ca se be r emande d either f or re sentenc ing or 17 for the issuanc e of a new or amende d prese ntence repor t. 18 On appe al, Vig il argues that the District Court violated Rule 32(i)( 3) by not making a 19 de te rm inatio n o n th e dis pute d p or tio ns of the pr e se nte nc e re po rt . F ur the r, he argue s th at hi s 20 claim of Rule 32 er ror should not be for eclose d by his waiver of

the rig ht to appeal. Vig il also 21 argues that he is entitled to re sentenc ing be cause there was no Spanish interpre ter pre sent at the6 1 be g inn ingof

his se nte nc ingpr oc e e din g . In r e sp on se , th e g ov e rnme nt a rgue s th at V ig il’ s a

pp e a l 2 sh ou ld b e dis mis se d in light o f V ig il’ s a

pp e a l w a ive r, or

a lte rn ativ e ly , th at th e Di str ic t Co ur t’ s 3 jud g me nt s ho uld

be a ff ir me d. B e c a

us e we c on c lud e that V ig il’ s a pp e a l w a ive r f

or e c los e s h is 4 c la im o f R

ule 32 e rr or

and his c la im r e g ard ingthe a bs e nc e of a Spa nis h inte rp re te r, we dis mis s 5 the appe al. 6 7 DISCUSSIO N 8 I 9 Rul e 32 (i )( 3) of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ri min a l Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s th at 10 [a]t s e nte nc ing , th e c ourt : 11

. . . . 12 (B ) must—for any disputed portion of the pre sentenc e re port or 13 oth e r c on tr ov e rt e d matte r— ru le on the dis pute or

de te rm ine that a

ru lin gis 14 unnece ssary either be cause the matter w ill not affec t sentencing , or 15 beca

use the c ourt will not consider the matter in sentencing ; and 16 (C ) m us t a pp e nd a c op y of the c ourt ’s de te rm inatio ns un de r t his 17 rule to any copy of the pre sentenc e re port made a vailable to the B urea

u of 18 Prisons. 19 20 Gene rally , if a district cour t fails to strictly

comply with Rule 32’s require ments, the ca se must be 21 rema

nded and r esente ncingmay be re quired. See, e .g. , United States v. W illiamsburg C

heck 2 2 Cashing Corp. , 9 05 F .2 d 2 5, 29 (2 d Ci r. 19 90 ); United States v. Bradley , 812 F.2d 774, 782 ( 2d 23 Cir.), cert. de nied , 484 U.S. 832 (1987). 24 In this case, the g overnme nt does not contend that the D istrict Court complied with Rul e 25 32 (i )( 3) wi th r e g ard to t he dis pute d p or

tio ns of the pr e se nte nc e re po rt . Rathe r, the g ov e rnme nt 26 argues that Vig il’s appea l based on the a lleg ed Rule 32 er ror is for eclose d by

the appe al-wa iver7 1 pr ov isi on

in V ig il’ s p le a

a g re e me nt. Vi g il r e sp on ds that hi s a pp e a l w a ive r o nly

pr e ve nts him 2 fr om atta c kin gthe me ri ts o r l e ng th o f h is s e nte nc e , n ot f ro m r a isi nga

c la im that th e Di str ic t 3 Court committed an err or in violation of Rule 32(i)(3) . Alternatively , Vig il argues that the 4 a lle g e d e rr or s c on ta ine d in the pr e se nte nc e re po rt

wi ll n e g ativ e ly

a ff e c t th e te rm s o f h is 5 imprisonment and, there fore , the District Court’s proc edure constituted a violation of his due 6 proce ss rig hts. As a re sult, Vigil argues that we should at least re mand this case f or the limited 7 purpose of

the issuance of a ne w or amended pr esente nce r eport. 8 We have not y et dec ided whethe r a de fenda nt’s waiver

of the right to appeal a

sentenc e 9 includes a w aiver

of the right to appeal a lleg ed Rule 32 er rors. The re a

re ve ry fewpublished 10 decisions from our sister circ uits addressingthe issue. In Un ite d S tates v . P e tty , 80 F.3d 1384, 11 13 87 –8 9 ( 9th

Cir . 1 99 6) , th e Court

of Ap pe a ls f

or the Ni nth Cir c uit he ld t hat th e de fe nd ant’ s 12 appea l waiver

did not preclude his claim that he and his counse l did not have enough time to 13 revie w his prese ntence repor t before sentenc ing, in violation of the pr edec essor to Rule 14 32 (i )( 1) (A ). On

the oth e r h and , at le a st two c ourt s o f a pp e a ls f or oth e r c ir c uit s h ave fo un d it 15 sufficie ntly

obvious that appea l waiver s do apply to Rule 32 error s to dispose of case s that raised 16 the issue by

unpublished opinions. 17 The Court of Appe als for the Six th Circuit was fac ed with a similar cla im to the one 18 raised he re in United States v. W ashington , 83 F. App’ x 110, 111 (6th Cir. 2003) (unpublished 19 decision). In that case , the def endant a rgued that he w as entitled to a re sentenc ing be cause the 20 district court noted the de fenda nt’s objections to the prese ntence repor t but failed to make 21 finding s on the disputed fac ts or to remove the contested infor mation from the pr esente nce8 1 repor

t. The cour

t rejec ted the def

endant’ s argument that his appea l waiver did not apply

to Rule 2 3 2 e r

r o r s , b e c a u s e th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s “ o b je c ti o n s w e r e c le ar ly

p art o f th e s e n te n c in gp h a s e o f

[th e ] 3 case ” and he “cle arly waived a ny rig ht to appeal his sentenc e, which inc ludes issues relating to 4 the [dist rict] court’s complianc e with Rule 32 in fashioninghis sentence .” Id. ; accord 5 Chaleunsak v. United States , Nos. 3:07-0416, 3:05-00096, 2008 WL2697551, at *6 (M.D. Te nn. 6 J uly

1, 2008). Simil arly , the Court of Appe als for the Seventh Circuit sug g ested in an 7 un pu bli sh e d d e c isi on

that a de fe nd ant’ s c la im o n a

pp e a l th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt vio late d h e r r ig hts 8 under Rule 32( e)( 2) by schedulingthe sentenc ing he aringonly 29 day s after

she re ceive d the 9 prese ntence repor

t was for eclose d by

the def endant’ s waiver

of the right to appeal a

ny sentenc e 10 within the statutory maxi mum. Un ite d S

tates v . M oo re , 97 F. App’ x 674, 675 (7th Cir. 2004) 11 (u

np ub lis he d d e c isi on ); c

f. U nite d S tates v . B or

de rs , 243 F. App’ x 182, 183–84 (7th Cir. 2007) 12 (u

np ub lis he d d e c isi on ) ( ru lin gthat c la im o f R ule 32 (h ) e rr or

wa s f or e c los e d b y

de fe nd ant’ s 13 appea l waiver). 14 We h old

a s a matte r o f f

ir st i mpr e ssi on

that V ig il’ s w a ive r o f t

he ri g ht t o a

pp e a l hi s 15 sentenc e applies to his claim of Rule 32( i)(3) e rror on appea l. In this case, Vig il’s appea l waiver 16 provides that he “ ag ree s not to file an appe al or other wise cha lleng e . . . the c onviction or 17 sentenc e in the eve nt that the Court imposes a term of imprisonment of 195 months or below.” 18 Vi g il’ s w a ive r o f h is r ig ht t o “ c ha lle ng e . . . [hi s] . . . s e nte nc e ” pla inl y inc lud e s a

wa ive r o f h is 19 rig ht to claim error s arisingout of the District Court’s cr aftingof Vig il’s sentence . Be cause the 20 conduct Vig il challeng es—the District Court’s a lleg ed fa ilure to make f indings re g ardingthe 2 1 d i s p u t ed

p o rt i o n s o f t h e p re s en t en ce re p o rtats en t en ci n g— wa s cl ea rl y

p arto f t h e s en t en ci n g9 1 phase of

Vig il’s case , Vig il’s challeng e is within the scope of his appea l waiver

and is fore closed. 2 To the extent our decision diffe rs from the published de cision of the Court of Appe als for 3 the Ninth Circuit in Pe tty , w e fi nd that c a se un

pe rs ua siv e and

ina pp os ite . In th at c a se , th e c ourt 4 found that the district cour t’s Rule 32 err or wa s “a substantial violation which a rose only afte r 5 the [appeal wa iver] was sig ned and which could not have been a nticipated.” Pe tty , 80 F .3 d at 6 1387. The fa ct that the alleg ed er ror in this case occur

red a fter V igil’s a

ppeal wa iver wa s signe d 7 do e s n ot r e nd e r V ig il’ s w a ive r v oid . T he re is n o e vid e nc e that th e pa rt ie s h e re int e nd e d V ig il’ s 8 waiver

to apply only to events or e rror s that occur red be fore it was signe d. Moreove r, while we 9 find no nee d to determine whether the alleg ed er

ror in this case could have been a nticipated at the 10 time Vigil sig ned the plea ag ree ment, we note that claims of Rule 32(i)(3) err or such a s the one 11 alleg ed her e ar e har dly rar e. See, e .g. , United States v. Kee , 29 F. App’ x 625, 627 (2d Cir.) 12 (summary

order) (r emandingbeca

use of e rror

under the prede cessor

to Rule 32(i)(3)) , cert. 1 3 denied, 5 37 U. S. 8 71 (2 00 2) ; se e als o United States v. W illiams , 612 F.3d 500, 515–17 ( 6th Cir. 14 20 10 ) ( re mand ingbe c a us e of Rul e 32 (i )( 3) e rr or ); Un ite d S tates v . R os s , 502 F.3d 521, 531 ( 6th 15 Cir. 2007) (same ), cert. de nied , 552 U.S. 1281 (2008). 16 Vi g il a

rgue s th at e ve n if

his c la im o f R

ule 32 e rr or

is i nc lud e d w ith in t

he sc op e of

his 17 appea l waiver , we should neve rtheless re mand the ca se for the limited purpose of the issuanc e of 18 a ne w o r a me nd e d p re se nte nc e re po rt . V ig il c la ims that th e e xistin gpr e se nte nc e re po rt vio late s 19 his rights unde r the Due Process Clause of the Fif th Amendment bec ause the disputed portions of 20 the pre sentenc e re port will neg atively impact the ter

ms and conditions of his imprisonment, 21 re su lti ngin t

he imp os iti on

of a dd iti on a l pe na lti e s w ith out du e pr oc e ss o f l aw. As a re su lt, Vi g il10 1 urg es us to find his appea l waiver unenfor cea

ble, at lea st for the purpose s of a r emand f or an 2 amende d prese ntence repor t. 3 Waivers of the r ight to appe al a se ntence are presumptively enfor cea ble. United States v. 4 Gomez-Perez , 2 15 F .3 d 3 15 , 3 19 (2 d Ci r. 20 00 ). “ Kn ow ingand vo luntary

a pp e llate wa ive rs 5 inc lud e d in

ple a a g re e me nts mus t be e nf

or c e d b e c a

us e , if the y are no t, t he c ov e na

nt n ot t o a

pp e a l 6 become s meaning less and would ce ase to have value as a ba rg ainingchip in the hands of 7 defe ndants.” Un ite d S tates v . G ra nik

, 3 86 F .3 d 4 04 , 4 12 (2 d Ci r. 20 04 ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s 8 omi tte d) . A s a

re su lt, we fi nd

wa ive rs un e nf

or c e a ble on ly in v e ry lim ite d s itu atio ns , “ su c h a s 9 wh e n th e wa ive r w a s n ot m a de kn ow ing ly , v olu nta ri ly , a nd c omp e te ntl y , whe n th e se nte nc e wa s 10 imposed based on c onstitut ionally impermissible factor s, such as e thnic, rac ial or other 1 1 p ro h i b i t edb i as es , wh en th e go v ern m en tb re ac h edth e p l eaagr ee m en t , o r w h en th e s en t en ci n g 12 court fa iled to enunciate any rationale for the de fenda nt’s sentenc e.” Gomez-Perez , 2 15 F .3 d at 13 319 (interna l citations omit ted). 14 We conclude that the alleg ed er ror he re doe s not render

Vig il’s appea l waiver

void. 15 Th e re is n o q

ue sti on that de fe nd ants ’ i nte re st i n th e a c c ur a c y of pr e se nte nc e re po rt s c on tin ue s 16 even a fter se ntence is imposed. Se e Un ite d S tates v . U rsi llo , 786 F.2d 66, 68–69, 69 n.3 ( 2d Cir. 17 1986) (discussingthe importance of the pre sentenc e re port to the Bur eau of Prisons). Indeed, 18 this post-sentencinginterest motivated the e nactment of the pre dece ssor to Rule 32(i)(3) in 1983. 19 Th e Ad

vis or y Committe e No te s to the 19 83 ame ndme nts to R ule 32 po int

out th at if

dis tr ic t 20 courts fa il to rule on disputed portions of prese ntence repor ts, “it is possi ble that the B urea u [of 21 Prisons] . . . , in the course of re achinga dec ision on such matters as institution assignment,11 1 e lig ibi lity

fo r p ro g ra

ms, or c omp utatio n o f s a lie nt f

a c tor s, wi ll p la c e g re at r e lia nc e up on fa c tua l 2 a sse rt ion s in

the re po rt

wh ic h a re in f a c t untr ue .” Th at is pr e c ise ly

the ha rm that V ig il a lle g e s 3 will occur he re. 4 Neve rtheless, Vig il provides no basis for his cla im that such a har m rises to the level of 5 the depr ivation of liberty without due proce ss of law. It is clear that a district court’s f ailure to 6 fo llo w the pr oc e dura l r e qu ir e me nts of Rul e 32 (i )( 3) a lon e do e s n ot g ive ri se to a du e pr oc e ss 7 violation. Cf. United States v. Timmreck, 4 41 U. S. 7 80 , 7 83 –8 4 ( 19 79 ) ( no tin gthat te c hn ic a l 8 vio latio ns of

the Rul e s o f C ri min a l Pr oc e dure do no t g ive ri se to h a be a s c or pu s r e lie f) ; Po or 9 Thunder v. United States , 8 10 F .2 d 8 17 , 8 22 n. 5 ( 8th Cir . 1 98 7) ; Johnson v. U nited States , 805 10 F .2 d 1 28 4, 12 87 (7 th C ir . 1 98 6) . T his is n ot a c a se wh e re the de fe nd ant w a s d e nie d d ue pr oc e ss 1 1 b ec au s e h e w as n o tgi v en an y o p p o rt un i ty

t o co n t es tth e p re s en t en ce re p o rtath i s s en t en ci n g 12 proce eding

. Se e Un ite d S tates v . S le v in , 106 F.3d 1086, 1091 ( 2d Cir. 1996) (notingthat the Due 13 Process Clause r equire s that the defe ndant be a ffor ded some opportunity to rebut the 14 g overnme nt’s alleg ations conce rningsentenc ing disputes) . Nor is there any basis for Vig il to 15 claim that the District Court re lied on inacc urate information in deter mining his sentenc e. See 1 6 generally U

nited States v. Tucke r , 404 U.S. 443, 447 (1972). Rather , the Court hear d the par ties’ 17 objection to the alleg ed misinformation and ultimately ag ree d with the parties that the lowe r 18 Guidelines ra

ng e should apply , albeit without making a n expli cit deter

mination that the disputed 19 information would not aff ect se ntencingor that the infor mation was inac curate. 20 We are awa re of no case that has held that the me re e x istence of inacc urate information in 21 a pre sentenc e re port, rathe r than a district court’s re liance on suc h information in sentenc ing,At least one district c ourt in this C ircuit has addr essed a simil ar c laim and deter

mined 1 that there was no due proce ss violation. See , Kee v . United States , N os . 0 3 Ci v. 90 67 , 9 8 Cr im. 77 8, 20 04 WL15 42 23 3, at *3 (S .D .N .Y . July 8, 20 04 ) ( re

je c tin gde fe nd ant’ s h a

be a s d ue pr oc e ss claim base d on the trial cour t’s failure to rule on disputed portions of the pre sentenc e re port). Th e Court

of Ap pe a ls f

or the Se ve nth

Cir c uit no te d in an unp ub lis he d d e c isi on

that a 2 de fe nd ant c an s e e k to c or re c t pr ob le ms c a

us e d b y an e rr on e ou s p re se nte nc e re po rt thr ou g h th is administrative re medy

prog ram. Un ite d S

tates v . W hite , 309 F. App’ x 38, 40 (7th Cir. 2009) (unpublished dec ision). 12 1 constitutes a due pr ocess violation or is an e rror sufficie nt to void an appea l waiver . As noted 2 above, at least one c ourt that has conside red whether an appe al waive r is eff

ective in the f

ace of 3 such an a lleg ed er ror ha s upheld the wa iver in an unpublished opinion. See W ashington , 83 F. 4 Ap p’ x at 1 11 . Wh ile Vi g il c ou ld p ote nti a lly su ff e r a dv e rs e c on se qu e nc e s r e late d to his tr e atme nt 5 in p ri so n a s a

re su lt o f t

he e xiste nc e of

the inf or matio n in the pr e se nte nc e re po rt , h e ha s n ot 6 shown, at this stag e, that the potential ha rm rises to the leve l of a due proce ss violation. 1 7 Moreove r, any

potential harm to Vig il is out weig hed by the intere sts underlying the 8 enfor cea

bility of appe al waive rs. This conclusion is underlined by the ability

of the de fenda

nt, 9 and ar g uably

the obligation of the g overnme nt, to bring to the B urea u of Prisons’ attention the 10 fa c t th at th e g ov e rnme nt a g re e s th at th e dis pute d in fo rm atio n in Vi g il’ s p re se nte nc e re po rt is 11 ina c c ur ate . F ur

the rm or e , to the e xtent th e inf or matio n in the pr e se nte nc e re po rt

c a us e s V ig il 12 problems with the B urea u of Prisons, he ca

n seek to a ddress a

ny issues throug h the B urea u of 13 Prisons’ administrative reme dy prog ram. See 28 C.F .R. §§ 54 2. 10 –. 19 ; Johnson v. Testman , 380 14 F.3d 691, 693 ( 2d Cir. 2004) (desc ribing the administrative re medy prog ram). 2 15 For

all of these r easons, we hold that Vigil’s c laim of Rule 32 err or is included within the 16 sc op e of

his wa ive r o f t

he ri g ht t o a

pp e a l hi s se nte nc e and

that th e wa ive r p re c lud e s V ig il’ s13 1 claims on appe al. 2 II 3 In addition to his claim of Rule 32 error , Vig il argues that he is entitled to a r emand f or 4 re s en t en ci n g b ec au s e t h er e w as n o S p an i s hi n t er p re t er p re s en tatth e b egi n n i n g o f h i s s en t en ci n g 5 proce eding . This period cove red f ewe r than thre e pag es of substantive discussion in the 6 sentenc ing tr anscr ipt. Vigil ar g ues that “he could not understand what was tra nspiring a nd could 7 not assist his counsel in any manner ” duringthis ti me. Vig il argues that the a bsence of a Spanish 8 interpre ter re ndere d him effe ctively absent at his sentencing , in violation of Fede ral Rule of 9 Criminal Procedure 43(a) (3) a nd the Due Proc ess Clause of the Fifth Ame ndment. See ge nerally 1 0 Un ite d S

tates v . A ga rd, 77 F.3d 22, 24–25 ( 2d Cir. 1996) (discussinga def endant’ s rig ht to be 11 prese nt at sentenc ing)

. 12 This claim is also prec luded by Vig il’s waiver

of the right to appeal. As discusse d above, 1 3 a p p e a l w a i v e r s ar e p r e s ump t i v e l y e n f o r c e a b l e an d th e e x c e p t i o n s t o th i s r

u l e “ o c c u p y a v e r y 14 circ umscribed a

rea of our jurisprude nce.” Gomez-Perez , 215 F.3d at 319. None of the 15 exceptions to thi s rule applies to the c laim here . First, Vig il does not argue, nor c ould he base d 16 on the fa cts of this case , that his waiver of his right to appe al was unknow ingly , involuntarily , or 1 7 i n c o mp e t e n t l y m a d e . T h e r e i s n o qu e s t i o nth ata S p an i s hi n t e r

p r e t e r w a s p r e s e n tf

o r th e e n t i r e ty 18 of Vig il’s plea proc eeding , duringwhich Vig il confirmed that his plea ag ree ment was tra

nslated 19 into Spanish, t hat he ha d revie wed the a g ree ment with his lawy er, a nd that he under stood the 20 appea l-waive r provision. 21 Second, ther e wa s no constitutional viol ation that could potentially serve as the ba sis forWe express no opinion whether, had the interpre ter be en abse nt when Vig il’s sentence 3 was ora lly

imposed, se e Ag

ar d , 7 7 F .3 d at 24 –2 5, Vi g il’ s a pp e a l w ou ld b e fo re c los e d b y his appea l waiver

. 14 1 an exception to Vig il’s appea l waiver . The e x tent to which Vig il required a n interpre ter in the 2 first instance is not cle ar. N either V igil nor his counse l raised a ny objection to the fa ct that no 3 int e rp re te r w a s p re se nt at th e be g inn ingof his pr oc e e din g . Rathe r, it w a s o nly wh e n V ig il’ s 4 se nte nc ingc oll oq

uy be g an th at V ig il’ s c ouns e l st ate d th at he tho ug ht “ it m ig ht b e a little bit 5 b et t er

un d er th e c i rc um s t an ce s ” t o h av e a ni n t er p re t er p re s en tfo r t h e r em ai n d er o f t h e s en t en ci n g 6 proce eding . Moreove r, Vig il lis tened a nd responde d to two questions from the Court in Eng lish, 7 dis pla

yingat le a st s ome a

bil ity to u nd e rs tand and sp e ak th e langua g e . F ur

the rm or e , V ig il p oints 8 to no prejudice that resulted f rom the abse nce of

the interpre ter. Dur ing the time the interpre ter 9 wa s a

bs e nt, the Di str ic t Co ur

t on ly c on fi rm e d w ithc ouns e l f or bo th p art ie s th at th e Gu ide lin e s 10 rang e should be lowe r and that Vigil wa s in fact se ekinga below- Guidelines sentenc e. When 3 11 the interpre ter a

rrived, the District Court repe ated the two que stions it had aske d Vig il in order to 12 e ns ur e that V ig il h a d und e rs too d. Vi g il a rgue s th at if

an inte rp re te r h a d b e e n p re se nt, he might 13 have a sked his lawy er if his pre sentenc e re port would be amended a nd, presumably , his lawy er 14 wo uld

have so ug ht i ts a

me ndme nt. Th is a

rgume nt l ay e rs sp e c ulatio n u po n s pe c ulatio n a

nd is n ot 15 sufficie nt to show that any Due Proc ess Clause violation occur red. 16 F or

a ll o f t he se re a so ns , V ig il’ s c la im b a se d o n th e a bs e nc e of a Spa nis h inte rp re te r i s 17 prec luded by

his appea l waiver

. 18 1915 1 CONCLUSION 2 For

all of the re asons explained above, w e conc lude that Vig il’s waiver of the right to 3 appea l his sentence f orec loses his claim of Rule 32 err or and his cla im based on the a bsence of 4 an interpr eter

at his sentencingproce eding . There fore , we DI SM ISS the appe al.