# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 15 92

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ant on io Ram on Guzm an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Sio ux Fal ls

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 12
Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 21 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Ant on io Ram on Guz m an pl ead ed gu il ty to po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e

a co nt ro ll ed su bs t a nc e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ). Guz m an 's pl ea

ag reem en t in cl ud ed an ap pe al waiv er

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 12 1 1

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of So ut h Dak ot a.m on th s' im

pr is on m en t to be fo ll owe d by fiv e y e a r s of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Guz m an

ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at (1 ) th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t by ha vi ng hi m pl ead gu il ty t o a d iff

eren t o ffen se wit h a hi gh er m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce th an

th e of fen se fo r whi ch he was in di ct ed

, an d (2 ) th e pl ea ag reem en t was am bi gu ou s an d

sh ou ld be co ns tru ed ag ai ns t th e go ve rn m en t. W e en fo rce th e ap pe al waiv er co nt ai ne d

in th e p le a ag reem en t an d d is m is s Gu zm an 's a pp eal

.

I. Bac kg ro un d

A f t e r Guz m an at te m

pt ed to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e ("m et h" ) to a n

un de rco ve r pol ic e of

fi ce r, he w as arrest ed

. Acco rd in g to th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n

rep or t (PSR), Guzm an po ss es se d 37 0.5 gr am s of a m ix tu re of m et h (12 5.8 gr am s of

act ua l m et h ba se d on a Dru g Enfo rc e men t Age nc y la b te st ) du rin g th e fin al bu y

arra ng em en t wi th th e u nd erco ve r of fic er.

The go ve rn m en t fil ed an in di ct m en t ch arg in g th at Guz m an "d id kn owi ng ly an d

in te nt io na ll y po ss es s wit h th e in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s or m or e of a m ix tu re an d

su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni n g m et ha m ph et am in e, a Sch ed ul e II co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e, in

vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 )." At Guz m an 's in it ia l ap pe aran ce, th e m ag is tra te jud ge rev ie wed th e i n d i c t men t wit h Guz m an an d ad vi se d hi m th at th e "[p ]oss ib le

pe na lt ie s" were a "m in im um [o f] 5 y ears to [a] m ax im um of 40 y ears [']

im pr is on m en t." Guz m an pl ead ed no t gu il ty to th e ch arg es se t fo rth in th e in di ct m en t.

The reaf te r, Guz m an an d th e go ve rn m en t e n t e red in to a pl ea ag reem en t th at was
si gn ed by Guz m an , Guz m an 's at to rn ey , an d th e go v e r n men t

. The pl ea ag reem en t

pr ov id e d

, am on g ot he r th in gs , th at (1 ) Guz m an wou ld pl ead gu il ty to vi ol at in g § 84 1( a)(1 ); (2 ) th e go ve rn m en t ha d di sc ret io n to reco m m en d an y se nt en ce wit hi n th e

st at ut or y li m it s; an d (3 ) Guz m an waiv ed hi s rig ht to ap pe al

, ex cep t fo r th e ab il it y to "ap pe al an y de ci si on by th e Co ur t to de pa rt up ward pu rs ua n t t o t h e se nt en ci ng

gu id el in es as well as th e le ng th of hi s se nt en ce fo r a de te rm in at io n of it s su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss sh ou ld th e Co ur t im po se an up ward de pa rtu re or an up ward va ria nc e

pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)."

-2

-Para gr ap h C of t he pl ea ag reem en t s ta te s, i n re le va nt pa rt:

The Defen da nt wil l pl ead gu il ty to th e In di ct m en t fil ed in th is ca se , whi ch ch arg es th e vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ). Th e ch ar ge ca rr ie s

a man da to ry min imu m s en te nc e of 10 yea rs in pr i s o n a n d a max imu m

se nt en ce of li

fe in pr is on , a $1 0 m il li on fin e, or bo th

, a n d a te rm of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

(Em ph as is ad de d.)

At th e ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t rev ie wed "t he m an da to ry

m in im um an d t he po ss ib le m ax im

um pe na lt ie s" wit h Gu zm an , st at in g:

I wan te d to go ov er wit h y ou wha t th e m an da to ry m in imu m an d th e
po ss ib le m ax im

um pe na lt ie s are. The se are a li tt le di ffe r e n t th an wha t

was in y ou r Pl ea Agr eem en t, so I wan t yo u t o li st en care fu ll y as I go th ro ug h th is . I t's act ua ll y in so m e in st an ces les s th an wha t was in y ou r Pl ea Ag reem en t.

The m an da to ry m in im

um pe rio d of im

pr is on m en t is a pe rio d of

no t le ss th an 10 y ears , an d th e m ax im um pe rio d of im

pr is on m en t is no t

m or e th an 40 y ears . The m ax im um fin e is no t m or e th an $5 m il li on

.

* * *

Do y ou un de rs t a n d th os e are th e m an da to ry m in im um an d th e

m ax im um pe na lt ie s t ha t you fa ce i f y ou pl ead gu il ty?

Guz m an rep li ed

, "Yes

, You r Hon or ." Guz m an al so ack no wled ge d th at he was
waiv in g hi s rig ht to ap pe al , exc ep t i f th e co ur t se nt en ced hi m ab ov e th e Gui de li ne s

ran ge

. The di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed Guz m an 's gu il ty pl ea , fin di ng th at th e pl ea was

"k no win g a nd vo lu nt ary. "

-3

-Guz m an la te r fil ed a pr o se m ot io n to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea. He arg ue d th at

t he pl ea ag reem en t vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t du e pr oc es s rig ht s be cau se th e

in di ct m en t ch arg ed hi m wit h po ss es si on wit h in te nt to de li ve r a 50 -g ram m ix tu re of

m et h, bu t th e fact ua l ba si s st at em en t of th e pl ea ag reem en t st at ed th at he "p os se ss ed

50 gr am s or m or e of m et ha mp h et am in e (p ur e) wit h th e in te nt to di st rib ut e it to th e

un de rco ve r of

fic er." Guz m an su bs eq ue nt ly wit hd rew th is pr o se m ot io n. At th e ti m e

of th e wit hd rawal

, Guz m an st at ed th at hi s wit hd rawal of th e m ot io n was kn owi ng ly,

v o l u n ta ril y , an d in te ll ig en tl y m ad e fo ll owi ng fo ur m eet in gs wit h hi s co un se l. Th e
di st ric t co ur t g ran te d t he m ot io n t o wi th dr aw.

The PSR cal cu la te d a t o t a l o ffen se le ve l of 29 (b as e of fen se le ve l of 32 wit h

a th ree- le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y ) an d a cri m in a l hi st or y

cat eg or y of IV. The res ul ti ng Gui de li ne s ran ge was 12 1 to 15 1 m on th s' im pr is on m en t.

Guz m an fil ed no ob

jecti on s to th e PSR. Dur in g th e se nt en c in g he ari ng , co nf us io n

aro se as to th e co rrec t m an da to ry m in im um

. The di st ric t co ur t in it ia ll y st at ed th at th e

m an da to ry m in im

um was fiv e y ears ' im

pr is on m en t, bu t th e go ve rn m en t an d de fen se

co un se l ul ti m at el y ag reed th at th e m an da to ry m in im um was te n y ears ' im

pr is on m en t

ba se d o n t h e fact ua l ba si s st at em en t th at Guz m an ha d si gn ed

. The fact ua l ba si s

st at em en t in di cat ed th at Guz m an po ss es se d wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s or m or e

of pu re m et h rat he r th an a m et h m ix tu re. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Guz m an to 12 1

m on th s' im

pr is on m en t fo ll owe d by fiv e y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The co ur t ba se d

it s se nt en ce on Guz m an 's ro le in th e of fen se an d hi s la ck of fu ll co op erat io n wit h la w

en fo rcem en t.

Guz m an fil ed a ti m el y no ti ce of ap pe al

, an d th e go ve rn m en t m ov ed to di sm is s

th e ap pe al "b as ed up on th e va li d a nd en fo rcea bl e ap pe ll at e rig ht s waiv er co nt ai ne d

wit hi n t he writ te n p le a ag reem en t."

-4

-II. Dis cu ss io n

Guz m an arg ue s th at hi s cas e sh ou ld be rem an de d fo r res en te nc in g be cau se th e pl ea ag reem en t was am

bi gu ou s as to th e m an da to r y mi n i m um fo r th e of

fen se

. Guz m an di d no t rai se th is is su e be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t an d ack no wled ge s th at if we
ad dr es s t he is su e h e rai se s, we wo ul d d o s o u nd er a p la in -err or rev ie w st an da rd

. 2

"We rev ie w de no vo th e is s u e o f whe th er a de fen da nt ha s kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly waiv ed rig ht s in a pl ea agre em en t." Uni te d
St at es v. Sw ic k

, 26 2 F.3 d 68 4, 68 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). "We re vi ew
qu es ti on s reg ard in g th e in te rp ret at io n an d en fo rcem en t of pl ea
ag reem en ts de no vo

. W he re a pl ea ag reem en t ha s be en acce pt ed by th e

co ur t, we ge ne ral ly in te rp ret th e m ean in g of th e te rm s in th e ag reem en t

acco rd in g to ba si c pr in ci pl es of co nt ract la w." Uni te d St at es v. Mos le y , 50 5 F .3d 80 4, 8 08 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

Uni te d S ta te s v. S el vy , 61 9 F .3d 94 5, 9 49 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

"When rev ie win g a pu rp or te d [ap pe al ] waiv er [co nt ai ne d in a pl ea ag reem en t],

we m us t co nf irm th at th e ap pe al fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of th e waiv er an d th at bo th th e
waiv er an d pl ea ag reem en t were en te red in to kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly." And is

, 33 3

G u z man al so arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t by 2

arg ui ng fo r a te n- y ear m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce du rin g se nt en ci ng rat he r th an a fiv e-year m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce, whi ch m at ch ed th e ch arg e in th e in di ct m en t.
W e co nc lu de th at Guz m an waiv ed th is arg um en t by wi th dr awin g hi s p ro se m ot io n
to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea pr io r to se nt en ci ng

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. W is eca rv er , 59 8
F.3 d 98 2, 98 8 (8 t h C i r

. 20 10 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at a de fen da nt waiv es an arg um en t by
in te nt io na ll y rel in qu is hi ng or ab an do ni ng a kn own rig ht an d th at waiv ed cl ai m s are

no t revi ewab le on ap pe al ). As the go ve rn m en t po in ts ou t, in wit hd rawi ng hi s pr o se

m ot io n to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty pl ea, Guz m an ack no wled ge d th at hi s "d eci si on to wit hd raw th es e pl ead in gs is kn owi ng ly, vo lu nt ari ly, an d in te ll ig en tl y m ad e fo ll owi ng fo ur m eet in gs wit h co un se l." Guz m an al so fil ed an d si gn ed a c o n s e n t i n whi ch he
ad m it te d th at he "t ho ro ug hl y di sc us se d th e pu rp os e an d th e effe ct " of th e wit hd rawal
of hi s p ro se d oc um en ts an d c on se nt ed to th ei r wit hd rawal

.

-5

-at 88 9– 90

. Bu t if en fo rci ng th e waiv er "wo ul d res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce," we

wil l de cl in e to en fo rce th e waiv er "[e ]ven whe n th es e co nd it io ns are m et ." Id

. at 89 0.

W e ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld th at a de fen da nt 's ap pe al waiv er in a pl ea ag reem en t

was "k no win g an d vo lu nt ary" whe re th e "p le a ag reem en t st at e[d ] th at [th e] gu il ty pl ea

was 'vo lu nt ary' an d no t co erce d," th e pl ea ag reem en t st at ed t h at th e de fen da nt

"d is cu ss ed th e cas e an d h er ri gh ts wit h h er at to rn ey an d t ha t sh e was ad vi se d o f th e

na tu re an d ran ge of he r po ss ib le se nt en ce," an d "[t ]he di st ric t co ur t c o n f i r med th at [th e de fen da nt ] ha d rev ie wed th e pr ov is io ns of th e pl ea ag reem en t wit h he r at to rn ey ."

Uni te d S ta te s v. C er va nt es , 42 0 F .3d 79 2, 7 94 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

As in Cer va nt es , Guz m an en te red in to th e pl ea ag reem en t aft er co ns ul ti ng wit h

hi s att or ne y

. Part A of th e pl ea ag reem en t pr ov id es th at Guz m an "ag rees th at he ha s
be en fu ll y ad vi se d of hi s st at ut or y an d co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s he rei n, an d th at he ha s
be en in fo rm ed o f t h e ch arg es an d al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t hi m an d th e pe na lt y th eref or ,

an d th at he un de rs ta nd s th e sa m e." Part O of th e pl ea ag reem en t pr ov id es , in rel ev an t

pa rt:

The Defen da nt he reb y waiv es al l de fe ns es an d hi s rig ht to ap pe al an y

no n- juri sd ic ti on al is su es

. The pa rti es ag ree th at ex cl ud ed fro m t h is
waiv er is th e Defen da nt 's rig ht to ap pe al an y de ci si on by th e C o ur t to de pa rt up ward pu r su an t to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es as well as th e le ng th of hi s se nt en ce fo r a de te rm in at io n of it s s u b s t a n t iv e

r e a s o na bl en es s sh ou ld th e Co ur t im po se an up ward de pa rtu re or a n
up ward va ria nc e p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a).

At t h e ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t co nf irmed th at Guz m an ha d

rev ie wed th e pl ea ag reem en t wit h co u n se l pr io r to si gn in g it

. It al so co nf irmed

Guz m an 's un de rs ta nd in g of th e ap pe al waiv er. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at Guz m an was

"awa re of th e na tu re of th e ch arg es an d th e co ns eq ue nc es of th e pl ea, an d th at th e pl ea

-6

-of gu il ty is a kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry pl ea su pp or te d by an in de pe nd en t bas is in fact

co nt ai ni ng each of t he ess en ti al ele m en ts of t he off en se ."

As to Guz m an 's wit hd raw a l of hi s pr o se m ot io n to wit hd raw hi s gu il ty p le a,

G uz m an st at ed th at hi s wit hd rawal of th e m ot io n was "k no win gl y , v ol un ta ril y, a n d

in te ll ig en tl y

m ad e fo ll owi ng fou r m eet in gs wit h c ou ns el ."

B as ed on th e reco rd

, we co nc lu de "t he ap pe al fal ls wit hi n th e sc o p e o f t h e
waiv er an d th at bo th th e waiv er an d pl ea ag reem en t were en te red in to kn owi ng ly an d

vo lu nt ari ly." And is

, 33 3 F.3 d at 88 9– 90

. F u r t h e rm or e, Guz m an 's se nt en ce of 12 1

m on th s' im

pr is on m en t fal ls be lo w th e st at ut or y m ax im um fo r ei th er po ss es si on wit h

in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s of pu re m et h or 50 gr am s of a m et h m ix tu re. Enfo rci ng

th e ap pe al waiv er wil l no t res ul t in a m is carr i a g e o f ju s ti ce. Se e And is

, 33 3 F.3 d at

89 1.

Fo r th e afo rem en ti on ed reas on s, we co nc lu de th at Guz m an waiv ed hi s rig ht to

ap pe al whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d i n im po si ng a 12 1- m on th se nt en ce
ba se d on po ss es si ng wit h th e in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s or m or e of pu re m et h whe re

th e in di ct m en t al le ge d 5 0 g ram s o r m or e o f a m et h m ix tu re.

III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s Gu zm an 's a pp eal

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-