2005 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 10-27-2005 

# U SA v . Rotge r Pe re z 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 . 04-1888

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . Rot g e r P e r ez " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 337. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/337NOT 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. 04- 1888

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OSE A NTO NI O R OTG ER PEREZ, A ppel l ant

O n 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 D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 03- cr - 00552 ( H onor abl e Fr ankl i n S. V an A ntw erpen) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember19, 2004 D eci ded N ovember22, 2004 C ert i or ar i G r ant ed M ar ch 21, 2005 J udgm entV aca t ed and Rem anded f r om the Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es

M ar ch 21, 2005 Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 6, 2005T he H onor abl e M i chae l C hert off r es i gned fr om the C our ton February16, 2005, and * to o k n o p a rt in th is d e c is io n . T h e o p in io n is f ile d b ya q u o ru m o f

th e p a n e l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 4 6 (d ). 2 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , M c K E E a n d C H E R T O F F , C i r cui tJudges * ( Fi l ed: O ct ober27, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . O n D ece m ber9, 2003, appel l antJ os e A nt oni o R ot gerPer ez pl ed gui l tyt o fi ve co u n ts of H o b b s A ct arm ed rob b eryan d fiv e c o u n ts of u sing an d ca rry ing a f

ir ea rm d u ri n g a c ri m e o f v iolen ce , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § § 1 9 5 1 an d 9 2 4 (c). O n e w ee k lat er, he s oughtt o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea. A ft eran evi dent i aryhear i ng hi s r eques tw as d e n ie d , a n d h e w a s s e n te n c e d to th ir te e n h u n d re d f o rt y -s e v e n m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. P e re z a p p e a led th e d istric t co u rt’s r e f u sa l to p e rm it w ith d ra w a l o f th e g u iltyp lea , an d th is C o u rt a f f ir m e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 . U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 115 Fed. A ppx. 586 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he Supr eme C our tgr ant ed Per ez’ s pet i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i on M ar ch 21, 2005, vaca t ed the j udgm ent , and r emanded t o thi s C our tforfur thercons i der at i on i n l i ght of U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 (2 0 0 5 ). U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 1 2 5 S . C t. 1 6 7 5 (20 0 5 ).3

P ere z n o w ch all en g es h is sen tenc e u n d er B ooker . A s p a rt o f h is p lea a g re e m e n t, h o w e v e r, P e re z “ v o lu n tar ilya n d e x p re ss lyw a iv e [ d ] a ll righ ts to a p p e a l o r c o llate ra lly att ack [ hi s ] convi ct i on, s ent ence , oranyotherm att err el at i ng t o thi s pr os ecut i on. ” The exce pt i ons l i s t ed i n t he pl ea a gr eementperm i t t ed an appeal onl yi f the governm ent appea l ed, i f the def

endant ’ s s ent ence exce eded the s t atut orym axi m um , ori f the s ent enci ng j udge err oneous l ydepart ed upw ar ds fr om the gui del i nes r ange. I n thi s cas e, the fi nal s ent ence w as w i thi n t he s t atut orym axi m um on eac h countof convi ct i on, and ther e w as no upw ar d departur e. Per ez doe s notcont end otherw i s e. I ns t ead, he ar gues he is en ti tl ed to re-se n tenc ing u n d er B ooker . “W ai vers of app eal s, i f enter ed int o k no w i ng l yand vo l un t ari l y , are val i d, un l ess theyw or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Khat tak , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). N e ith e r th e a p p e llate w a iv e r n o r th e g u iltyp lea itse lf is re n d e re d in v a lid m e re ly b e c a u s e o f

a s u b s e q u e n t c h a n g e in th e la w . U n itedS ta tes v . L o c ke tt , 406 F. 3d 207, 213 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e re f

o re w e h a v e h e ld th a t “w h e re a c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t h a s v o lu n tar ily a n d k n o w in g lye n ter e d in to a p lea a g re e m e n t in w h ich h e o r sh e w a iv e s th e rig h t to appea l , the def

endanti s notent i t l ed t o r es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof B ooker . ” Id . at214. T h e lan g u a g e o f

P e re z ’s p lea a g re e m e n t is id e n tica l to th a t w h ich w e u p h e ld in L o c ke tt . No f

a c t o r s h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e d th a two u l d d i s t i n g u i s h th i s c a s e f r o m L o c ke tt , or that m igh t entit le P ere z to d iffe ren t trea tm en t. W e d o n o t believe u p h o lding P ere z’s w a iv e r w ill w o rk a m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e . A c c o rd in g ly , P e re z h a s w a iv e d h is rig h t to4

ap p ea l his sen tenc e u n d er B ooker . W e w i l l aff i r m Per ez’ s s ent ence , and r ei ns t at e our p re v io u s o p in io n , ap p e n d e d h e re to , af f irm in g th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e f u sa l to p e rm it P e re z ’s w ith d ra w a l o f

h is g u ilty p le a . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 115 Fed. A ppx. 586 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).

# A P P E N D I XA - 1 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. 04- 1888 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OSE A NTO NI O R OTG ER PEREZ, A ppel l ant

O n 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 ( D i s tr i ctC our tN o. 03- cr - 00552) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Fr ankl i n S. V an A ntw erpen Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) : N ovember19, 2004

B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , and M C K E E a n d C H E R T O F F , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed N ovember22, 2004) OP I NI ON C H E R T O F F , C i r cui tJudge. A ft era j uryw as empanel ed and s w orn, openi ng ar gum ent s w er e compl et ed, and tw o vi ct i m s t es t i fi ed and i dent i fi ed A ppel l antJ os e A nt oni o R ot gerPer ez a s the man w hoA - 2

ro b b e d th e m a t g u n p o in t w h ile th e yw o rk e d a t a m in i-m a rk e t, P e re z c o n su lted w ith couns el , s i gned a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement , and pl ed gui l tyt o the fi ve arm ed r obber i es for w h ich h e w a s c h a rg e d . O n e w e e k late r, h e se n t a le tter to th e D istric t C o u rt, se e k in g to w ith d raw h is gu il typ lea. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied h is r eq u est af ter an ev iden ti ary h e a r i n g , a n d P e r e z a p p e a l e d . W e wi l l a f f i r m. O nce the D i s tr i ctC our thas acc ept ed a gui l typl ea, i t“maynotaut om at i cal l ybe w ith d raw n at th e d ef

en d an t' s w h im . ” U n it ed S tat es v . B row n , 2 5 0 F . 3 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 5 (3d C ir . 20 01 ) ( ci t i ng U nit ed S t at es v. M art i nez, 785 F . 2d 11 1 (3d C i r. 19 86 )) . T he C ou rtm ust i ns t ead de t erm i ne w hetherthe def endanthas “a f

ai rand j us tr eas on forw i thdr aw i ng a p lea o f g u ilty ,” F e d . R . C rim . P . 3 2 (e ), co n sid e rin g th e f o llo w in g th re e f

a c to rs: (1 ) w h e th e r th e d e f

e n d a n t as se rts h is in n o c e n c e ; ( 2) w hetherthe governm entw oul d be pr ej udi ced bythe w i thdr aw al ; and (3 ) th e s tr e n g th o f

th e d e f e n d a n t's r e a s o n to w ith d ra w th e p le a . I d. ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. H uff, 873 F. 2d 709, 711 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ) . T he bur den i s on t he defe ndantt o as s erthi s i nnocenc e and r eas on t o w i thdr aw the pl ea. I f he f ai l s t o do s o, t he governm entneed notes t abl i s h pr ej udi ce. U ni t ed St at es v. H arr i s , 44 F. 3d 1206, 1210 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). “A sh iftin d ef en se tac ti cs, a c h an g e o f m ind , o r th e f ea r of p u n ishm en t are notadequa t e r eas ons t o i m pos e on the governm entthe expe ns e, di ffi cul ty , and r i s k of try i ng a def

endantw ho has al r eadyacknow l edged hi s gui l tbypl eadi ng gui l ty . ” B r ow n, 250 F. 3d at815 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. J ones , 979 F. 2d 317, 318 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( s uper s eded bys t atut e on othergr ounds ) ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s “dec i s i on nott o gr antA - 3

s uch a mot i on w i l l onl ybe di s turbed i f the courthas abus ed i t s di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v . Isaa c, 14 1 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdet erm i ned thatthe D e f e n d a n t d id n o t p ro v id e a n y“ f a ira n d ju s t r e a s o n s ” f

o r w ith d ra w in g h is g u ilty p le a . Fi r s t , the D efe ndantneverm ai nt ai ned hi s i nnocenc e, even a tthe evi dent i aryhear i ng re g a rd in g h is p lea w ith d ra w a l re q u e st. T h e re , w h e n a sk e d w h e th e r h e “ in f a c t, comm i t [t ed] eac h and eve r yone of the r obber i es that[he] pl ed gui l tyt o, ” he a ns w er ed,

“ Y e s, I a d m itt e d to th e o n e s th a t y o u h a d w itn e ss e s f o r, th e p e o p le th a t tes tifie d h e re in the tr i al . ” ( A pp. 169; s ee a l s o A ppel l antB r . at13. ) Second, the D efe ndantdi d not pr ovi de a “ fai rand j us t ” r eas on forhi s w i thdr aw al r eques t . I ns t ead, hi s as s ert i on thathe di d notunder s t and hi s pl ea be caus e i tw as i n E ngl i s h i s bel i ed byhi s compet ent r epr es ent at i on bya bi l i ngual att orneyand the pr es ence of a Spani s h i nt erpr et erthr oughout the pl ea c ol l oquy . Per ez’ s cl ai m thathe w as “pr es s ur ed” t o pl ead gui l tybeca us e he w as t ol d thathe w oul d otherw i s e fa ce l i fe i m pr i s onm enti s negat ed bycl earcas e l aw that“fe ar of s ubs t ant i al s ent ence ” does notpr ovi de gr ounds t o w i thdr aw a pl ea, s ee J ones , 979 F. 2d a t 3 1 8 . F in a lly , the G o v e rn m e n t w o u ld su f f e r p re ju d ice if th e D e f e n d a n t w e re a llo w e d to w ith d ra w th e p lea h e m a d e m id -tria l, as it w o u ld re q u ire th e G o v e rn m e n t to d u p lica te its p r e v i o u s e f

f o r t s i f r e q u i r e d t o b r i n g th e c a s e t o tr i a l b e f o r e a n e w j u ry. T he D i stri ctC ou rtw as w i thin i t s di scr et i on w hen i tden i ed the D efen dan t ’s request t o wi th d r a w h i s p l e a o f

g u i l ty , a n d th i s Co u r twi l l a f f i r m.