H o n . L o u is H . P o ll ak , S en ior Ju d g e, U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern * D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 1078

THE UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M OI SES HER NA ND EZ, 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 rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . N o. 06- 736 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R ober tB . K ugl er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 16, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges , and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: M ay6, 2010)

_____ OP I NI ON

______- 1 -

PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge. T h is is a n a p p e a l f

ro m a c o n v ictio n f

o r c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e cr ack c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841, 846 and ca us i ng the dea t h of anotherper s on byus i ng a fi r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924. D efe ndantar gues on appea l that : ( 1) the di s t r i ctcour terr ed by deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea pr i ort o s ent enci ng; ( 2) the governm ent br eac hed i t s pl ea a gr eementw i t h hi m ; ( 3) the governm entcoer ced hi m i nt o acc ept i ng a p l e a b a r g a i n a n d mi s l e d h i m; a n d ( 4 ) th e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d b yf a i l i n g t o a wa r d h i m a th re e -p o in t re d u c tio n f

o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty . H e se e k s to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p le a . W e w ill a f

f ir m . I. B ecause w e w ri t e for t he p art i es, w e recoun ton l ythe essenti al fact s. T hese c h a rg e s a rise o u t o f

a n in v e stig a tio n in to d ru g tra f f ick in g in C a m d e n , N e w Je rse y . In late J une 2006, l aw enfor cementoffi cer s i nt er cept ed and r ecor ded conve r s at i ons fr om the m obi l e t el ephone of

an i ndi vi dual named C es arSever i no. T he s ubs t ance of the phone cal l s s ugges t ed thatSever i no had s uppl i ed def endantM oi s es H ernandez w i t h cr ack coca i ne butt hatH ernandez had compl ai ned thatthe cr ack c ocai ne s uppl i ed w as of poor q u a l i ty , l e a d i n g S e v e r i n o t o p r o mi s e t o r e p l a c e th e d ru g s wi t h h i g h e rq u a l i t yma t e r i a l . On J ul y8, 2006, Sever i no w as s hotand ki l l ed. H ernandez w as i dent i fi ed as the perpetr at or byE dw i n Sal di var , w ho w as pr es entw hen Sever i no w as s hotand w ho w as al s o i nj ur ed- 2 -

dur i ng the epi s ode. T w o ey ew i t nes s es s t andi ng acr os s the s t r eetatthe t i m e of the s h o o tin g a ls o id e n tif

ie d H e rn a n d e z . H e rn a n d e z w a s a rr e s te d o n J u ly 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 . S u b seq u en t t o h is arrest, H ern an d ez w aive d h is r igh ts un d er Mi r anda a n d c o n f e ss e d to D rug E nfor cementand A dm i ni s t r at i on agent s thathe ki l l ed Sever i no i n t he hea tof pas s i on aft erSever i no s l apped hi m . H ernandez al s o confe s s ed t o t he N ew J er s ey P ro s e c u to r’ s O f

f ic e a n d C a m d e n P o lic e D e p a rt m e n t in a s e p a ra te in te rv ie w . O n O ct ob er 25, 20 06 , t he g rand j uryreturned a 27 -count i nd i ct m ent agai nst H e rn a n d e z a n d f

iv e c o -d e f

e n d a n ts. A f

ter th e d istric t co u rt d e n ied H e rn a n d e z ’s m o tio n to s uppr es s , H ernandez ent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eementw i t h t he governm enton A pr i l 28, 2 0 0 7 . H e a g ree d to p lead g u il tyto co n sp ir ac yto p o sses s w ith inten t t o d istri b u te m o re than 35, butl es s t han 50, gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841 ( b) ( 1) ( C ) , 846, and ca us i ng t he dea t h of anotherper s on byus i ng a fi r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug t r aff

i cki ng offe ns e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) , 924( j ) , ( 2) (C o u n ts I a n d II o f

th e su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t). In e x c h a n g e , the g o v e rn m e n t ag re e d th a t, i f H ernandez compl i ed w i t h t he t erm s of the pl ea a gr eement , i tw oul d r ecomm end thatt he cour ti m pos e a pr i s on s ent ence of 240 m ont hs , 120 m onths eac h on C ount s I and I I t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y . O n M ay7, 2008, H ernandez pl ed gui l t ypur s uantt o t he pl ea agr eement . T he di s t r i ctcourtengage d i n a pl ea c ol l oquyt o ens ur e thatH ernandez ’ s pl ea w as vol unt aryand know i ng. A ft erfi ndi ng thatH ernandez w as “compet ent , capa bl e of ent er i ng a know i ng and i nt el l i gentpl ea” the courtconcl uded thati tw as “s at i s fi ed thathe- 3 -

i s i n fac tgui l t y . ” O n N o v e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , H e rn a n d e z f iled a m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u iltyp lea to the off ens e of homi ci de. H i s m ot i on w as acc om pani ed byan af fi davi ts t at i ng the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) he had notki l l ed C es arSever i no; ( 2) he had onl ypl ed gui l t ybeca us e he w a s a f ra id o f re c e iv in g a life se n ten c e ; an d (3 ) h a d h e k n o w n th a t h e w o u ld b e in d icte d in N ew J er s eys t at e courtfort he i nt ent i onal ki l l i ng of Sever i no, he w oul d nothave pl ed gui l tyi n fede r al court . A ta hea r i ng on the mot i on conduct ed on D ece m ber12, 2008, H ernandez ’ s couns el pr offe r ed addi t i onal evi dence i n t he form of the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) an a f f id a v it fro m H e rn a n d e z ’s s tep f a th e r sta tin g th a t h e sp o k e to a n o th e r in d iv id u a l w h o to ld h i m th a ta n i n d i v i d u a l k n o wn a s “ Ca r l i t o ” h a d c o n f e s s e d t o th e mu r d e r ; th a tth i s s a me i ndi vi dual t ol d hi m he had s een the w eapon us ed i n t he murde r ; ( 2) a phot ogr aph s how i ng that“C ar l i t o” and H ernandez have s i m i l arappea r ance s ; and ( 3) hear s ay i nform at i on t hataddi t i onal i ndi vi dual s had i dent i fi ed “Car l i t o” as the murde r er . W hen H ernandez t es t i fi ed underoath att he hea r i ng i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on, he expl ai ned that he pl ed gui l t ybeca us e he f ear ed r ece i vi ng a l i fe s ent ence , thathe w as underthe i nfl uence o f d ru g s a n d w a s p h y sic a llya b u se d b ylaw e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs a t th e tim e o f

h is confe s s i ons , and thathe had notcomm i t t ed the murde r . H ernandez al s o deni ed that S everi no w as supply i ng him w i t h d rugs. T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed H ernandez ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea a nd p ro c e e d e d to se n ten c e h im . A t se n ten c in g , the g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e d th a t H e rn a n d e z sh o u ld- 4 -

r ece i ve a s ent ence w i t hi n t he gui del i nes –namel ya s ent ence betw een 330 t o 350 m onths –i ns t ead of

t he 240 mont hs s t i pul at ed i n t he pl ea a gr eement . T he courtcal cul at ed h is G u id e lin e O f

f e n se L e v e l at 3 2 a n d C rim in a l H isto ryC a teg o ryV I. H e rn a n d e z f iled h is N ot i ce of

A ppeal on D ece m ber22. H ernandez w as s ent ence d t o a 210 mont h per i od of inca rce rati o n o n C o u n t I an d 1 2 0 m o n ths o n C o u n t I I, to b e se rve d co n sec u ti v ely , fo r a t ot al of 330 m ont hs . O n D ece m ber30, H ernandez m oved t o corr ecthi s s ent ence pur s uant to F e d . C ri m . P . 2 5 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d th a t m o tio n o n J a n u a ry 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 . II . W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o denyH ernandez ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw h is g u ilty p le a u n d e r t h e a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 336 F. 3d 2 4 5 , 2 5 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). O n c e a d e f e n d a n t p lea d s g u ilty , h e is n o t ea silyp e rm itt e d to w ith d ra w th a t p le a . Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 250 F. 3d 811, 815 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “O nce ac ce p ted, a g u il typ lea m ayn o t auto m ati ca ll yb e w ith d raw n at th e d ef en d an t’ s w h im . ”); G ov’tof V. I. v. B erry , 6 3 1 F .2 d 2 1 4 , 2 2 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 0 ) (“ T h e re is n o a b so lu te r ig h t to w i thdr aw a gui l t y pl ea, and the r i ghtt o do s o i s w i t hi n t he s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al co u rt . ”). T h e b u rde n is on the d ef en d an t t o sh o w “a n yfa iran d just reaso n ” f o r th e c o u rt t o perm i thi s pl ea t o be w i t hdr aw n. F. R . C r . P. 32( d) . T hatbur den i s “s ubs t ant i al . ” Jones , 336 F. 3d at252. I n deci di ng a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw , the di s t r i ctcour tm us tcons i der thr ee f act or s : “( 1) w hethert he def endantas s ert s heri nnocenc e; ( 2) w hetherthe governm entw oul d be pr ej udi ced bythe w i t hdr aw al ; and ( 3) the s t r ength of the- 5 -

defe ndant ’ s r eas on t o w i t hdr aw t he pl ea. ” Br o wn , 2 5 0 F .3 d a t 8 1 5 . W e fi nd t hatt he courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng H ernandez ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea. T he di s t r i ctcour tt ook not e of, and eva l uat ed, thes e thr ee fac t or s w hen i tcons i der ed H ernandez ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea. A l t hough t he di s tr i ctcourtfound thatgr ant i ng H ernandez ’ s m ot i on w oul d notpr ej udi ce the governm ent , i tdeni ed H ernandez ’ s m ot i on on t he gr ound t hatH ernandez had not s uppor t ed hi s as s er t i on of i nnocenc e w i t h fac t s i n t he r ecor d s uppor t i ng a cl ai m t o a defe ns e, as r equi r ed byBr o wn . U nderourcas e l aw , H ernandez m us tpr es entfac t s i n t he re c o rd s u p p o rt in g h is c la im o f in n o c e n c e . Br o wn , 250 F. 3d at818 ( “B al d as s ert i ons of in n o c e n c e , h o w e v e r, a re in s u f f ic ie n t to p e rm it a d e f

e n d a n t to w ith d ra w h e r g u ilty p le a . A s s er t i ons of i nnocenc e mustbe but t r es s ed byfac t s i n t he r ecor d t hats uppor ta cl ai m ed defe ns e. ”) ( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s vi ew , the evi dence H ernandez pr es ent ed w as notnece s s ar i l yi ncons i s t entw i t h hi s gui l t . Si nce thr ee w i tnes s es s t at ed thatt w o peopl e w er e pr es entatthe s hoot i ngs , “C ar l i t o” coul d have be en the s econd

per s on pr es ent . I n fac t , t he courtnot ed thatw hen he c onfes s ed, H ernandez nevers har ed the i dent i t yof the s econd i ndi vi dual w i t h t he pol i ce. A tthe hea r i ng on H ernandez ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea, the courtal s o found i ts i gni fi cantthat H e rn a n d e z d id n o t p ro v id e a c re d ib le a lib i f o r h is w h e re a b o u ts d u rin g th e m u rd e r, d e sp ite d ir ec t qu esti o n ing ab o u t th e m att er. In a d d iti o n , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t f in d c re d ib le H e rn a n d e z ’s e x p lan a tio n s f o r h is- 6 -

thr ee pr ece di ng confe s s i ons ( r efe r r i ng t o H ernandez ’ s confe s s i on t o t he D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s t r at i on, hi s confe s s i on t o N ew J er s eyPr os ecut or ’ s O ffi ce a nd C amden Pol i ce D epart m ent , and hi s gui l t ypl ea c ol l oquy ) . H ernandez t es t i fi ed thathe pl ed gui l tyonl yt o avoi d a l i fe s ent ence i n fede r al cour t , and, had he know n t hathe w as eventual l yal s o goi ng t o be i ndi ct ed i n s t at e courtforan off ens e ca r r y i ng a l i fe t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , he w oul d nothave pl ed gui l t ybefor e the di s t r i ctcour t . H e furt her cont ended thatt he governm entt ol d hi m ther e w er e no r el at ed ca s es , and thatonl yaft erhe

“ a c c e p ted th e p lea ” d id h e lea rn th a t h e h a d b e e n in d icte d in N e w Je rse ysta te c o u rt. H ow ever , w hen he t es t i fi ed i n di s t r i ctcour t , H ernandez admi t t ed thathe w as i nform ed by hi s couns el pr i ort o pl eadi ng gui l t ythatther e w as a s t at e courtcompl ai ntal l egi ng thathe had murde r ed Sever i no. H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatcouns el i nform ed hi m thatthe maxi m um s e n t e n c e f

o rt h a to f f e n s e i n N e w J e r s e y w a s a t e r m o f l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t . A c c o r d i n g l y, H ernandez ’ s ar gum enti s w i t houtm er i tand the di s t r i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n concl udi ng t hatH ernandez had notm ethi s “hea vybur den” t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea. H ernandez ’ s s econd a r gum enton appea l i s thathe s houl d be perm i t t ed t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l typl ea be caus e the governm entbr eac hed the pl ea a gr eementbyr eques t i ng thathe be s ent ence d t o a t erm of i ncar cer at i on w i t hi n t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange, r atherthan request i ng a l ow er s entence of 2 40 m on t hs, as st i pu l at ed in the p l ea agreem ent. B ecause H e rn a n d e z d id n o t r a is e th is o b je c tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , w e a p p ly th e p la in -e rr o r t e s t. P ucke t tv. U

ni t ed Stat es , --- U . S . --- -, 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 4 2 3 , 1 4 2 8 , 1 7 3 L . E d . 2 d 2 6 6 (20 0 9 ).- 7 -

P lain e rro r re v iew in v o lv e s f o u r ste p s: Fi r s t , t her e mustbe an e r r orordefe ct - s om e s or tof [d] evi at i on fr om a l egal ru le- th a t h a s n o t b e e n in ten tio n a llyre lin q u ish e d o r a b a n d o n e d , i. e ., a f f irm a tiv e ly w ai ved, byt he appe l l ant . Second, the l egal err orm us tbe cl earorobvi ous , r ather than s ubj ectt o r eas onabl e di s put e. T hi r d, the err orm us thave a ffe ct ed the app el l ant' s subst anti al ri gh t s, w hich i n the ordi narycase m eans he m ust d e m o n stra te th a t ita f

f e c ted th e o u tco m e o f

th e d istric t co u rt p ro c e e d in g s. F o u rth and fi nal l y , i f the above t hr ee pr ongs ar e s at i s fi ed, the courtof appe al s has the di s cr et i on t o r emedyt he err or - di s cr et i on w hi ch oughtt o be exe r ci s ed onl yi f the err ors er i ous l yaff

ect [s ] t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t yorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al proceed i ng s. I d. a t 1 4 2 9 (c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). C ont r actpr i nci pl es gui de ouri nt erpr et at i on of the gui l t ypl ea a gr eement . U ni t ed S ta tes v . Sc h w a rtz , 511 F. 3d 403, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T he governm enthas “an obl i gat i on t o adher e s t r i ct l yt o t he t erm s of the bar gai n i ts t r i kes w i t h defe ndant s . ” Q ueens bor ough , 2 2 7 F . 3 d a t1 5 6 ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . T h e q u e s t i o n f o ru s i s “ w h e t h e rth e g o v e r n m e n t 's conducti s cons i s t entw i t h t he part i es ’ r eas onabl e under s t andi ng of the agr eement . ” I d. T h u s , w e b e g in b ye x a m in in g th e re le v a n t p ro v is io n s o f th e p le a a g re e m e n t. T he pl ea a gr eementpr ovi ded thatH ernandez w oul d pl ead gui l t yt o C ountI and C ountI I of the s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entand “thatnei t herpart yw i l l ar gue forthe i m pos i t i on of a s ent ence out s i de the G ui del i nes r ange thatr es ul t s fr om the agr eed t ot al G ui del i nes offe ns e l evel . ” The agr eements t i pul at ed thatH ernandez w as a C ar eer O f f e n d e r u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 a n d th a t th e a p p lic a b le B a s e O f f e n s e L e v e l w a s 3 2 . H o w e v e r, th e a g re e m e n t p ro v id e d f o r p o ss ib le r e d u c tio n s in th e o f f e n se lev e l as f

o llo w s: 10. A s of the dat e of thi s l ett er , M oi s es H ernandez has cl ear l ydemonstr at ed a- 8 -

recogn i t i on and affirm at i ve acc eptance of p ers on al res po nsi bil i t yfor the o ffen se char ged. T her efor e, a dow nw ar d adj us t m entof 2 l evel s foracc ept ance of re sp o n sib ili tyis a p p ro p ria te if M o ise s H e rn a n d e z ’s a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili ty c o n tin u e d th ro u g h th e d a te o f s e n te n c in g . S e e U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 (a ). 11. . . . I f M oi s es H ernandez ent er s a pl ea pur s uantt o t hi s agr eementand qual i fi es f o r a 2 -p o in t r e d u c tio n f o r a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3E 1. 1( a) and i f i n addi t i on M oi s es H ernandez ’ offe ns e l evel underthe G ui del i nes pr i ort o t he oper at i on of U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1( a) i s 16 orgr eat er , [he] w i l l be ent i t l ed to a f u rt h e r 1 -p o in t r e d u c tio n in h is o f f e n s e le v e l p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 (b ). 1 2 . . . . th e p a rties a g re e th a t th e to tal G u id e lin e s o f f e n se lev e l ap p lica b le to M o ises H ern an d ez is 29 o n C o u n t I . 1 4 . T h e p a rt ie s a g re e th a t C ri m in a l H is to ry C a te g o ry o f V I a p p lie s in th is c a s e , and thatt he corr es pondi ng Sent ence G ui del i ne r ange i s 151 t o 188 m ont hs i m pr i s onm enton C ount1 and w oul d be 262 mont hs t o 327 m ont hs on C ount2, h o w e v e r, sin c e th e u n d e rly in g m u rd e r w a s a n in v o lu n tar ym u rd e r th e ra n g e is c a p p e d a t 1 2 0 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t, s e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (j )( 2 ) . . . . 15. T he part i es agr ee t o r ecomm end thatthe C our ti m pos e a pr i s on s ent ence of 240 m ont hs ( t hati s 120 m onths on C ountI and a c ons ecut i ve 120 mont hs on C ount2) and furt heragr ee thata pr i s on s ent ence of 240 m onths i s r eas onabl e and appr opr i at e. T he g ov ernm ent cont end s that H ernand ez’s m oti on t o w i t hd raw his gu i l t yplea w as a br eac h of the pl ea a gr eement ’ s r equi r ementthathe cont i nue t o demonstr at e ac cept ance of re s p o n s ib ility th ro u g h th e d a te o f th e s e n te n c in g . W e a g re e . In th is c a se , itis c lea r th a t H e rn a n d e z v e h e m e n tlym a in tain e d in h is a f f id a v it an d tes tim o n yth a t h e w a s in n o c e n t o f th e m u rd e r. H e sta ted in h is a f f id a v it s uppor t i ng hi s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea that“‘ I r eal l ydi dn’ tdo i t . ’ I n other w or ds , des pi t e mypl ea of gui l t y , I w antthe C our tt o know thatI di d notki l l C es ar- 9 -

S e v e rin o .” T h e re c a n b e n o o th e r re a d in g o f th is s tate m e n t. B ym o v in g to w ith d ra w h is gui l typl ea on the gr ound t hathe w as fac tual l yand l egal l yi nnocentof the murde rof Sever i no, H ernandez fai l ed t o demonstr at e cont i nued ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . U nder th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e g o v e rn m e n t ac ted p ro p e rlyw h e n it as k e d f o r a se n ten c e w ith in th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e , rath e r th a n th e se n ten c e stip u late d in th e p lea a g re e m e n t. H e rn a n d e z ’s th ird a rg u m e n t is th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s o f f e r o f a re d u c e d se n ten c e in excha nge fora gui l t ypl ea c ons t i tut ed coe r ci on, and thatthe governm entl i ed or i ntent i on al l ym i sl ed h i m abo ut i nfo rm at i on rel at i ng t o st at e cou rtproceed i ng s agai nst H ernandez forSever i no’ s m ur der . A s w e di s cus s ed above , w e fi nd unper s uas i ve H ern an d ez ’s all eg ati o n that the g o v ern m en t m isl ed h im . W ith reg ard to H ern an d ez ’s a rg u m e n t th a t h e w a s c o e rc e d in to p lea d in g g u ilty , the a lleg a tio n th a t th e o f f e r to r ecomm end a l ow ers ent ence pur s uantt o a gui l t ypl ea c ons t i tut es coer ci on i s not s uffi ci entt o underm i ne a gui l t ypl ea . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Sut t on , 794 F. 2d 1415, 1422 (9th C i r. 19 86 ) ( “[B ]ar e al l egati on of co erci on , present ed b efore t his cou rtfor the fir st tim e , is n o t su f

f icie n t to se t as id e th e p lea o f g u iltyo n th is d ire c t ap p e a l.”). T h e re is n o th in g in h e re n tlyc o e rc iv e a b o u t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s o f f e r to re c o m m e n d a su b sta n tially lo w e r se n ten c e in e x c h a n g e f o r a g u iltyp lea . A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt e x p lain e d in B or denki r cherv. H

ayes , 434 U . S. 357, 363 ( 1978) , “[A ] cce pt ance of the bas i c l egi t i m acy o f p lea b a rg a in in g n e c e ss a rilyim p lies re jec tio n o f

a n yn o tio n th a t a g u iltyp lea is i nvol unt aryi n a cons t i tut i onal s ens e s i m pl ybeca us e i ti s the end r es ul tof the bar gai ni ngA one- l evel r educt i on i s perm i t t ed onl yupo n the gover nm ent ’ s m ot i on and 1 aft erthe fi r s tt w o- poi ntr educt i on has been a w ar ded, and t h u s w e d o notr evi ew i ther e. U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 (b ). - 10 - pr oces s . ” I ti s i nher entt hat“the pl ea mayhave be en i nduced bypr om i s es of a r ecomm endat i on of a l eni ents ent ence ora r educt i on of cha r ges , and thus byfea rof the pos s i bi l i tyof a gr eat erpenal t yupon convi ct i on aft era tr i al . ” Id . F i n a l l y , He r n a n d e z a r g u e s t h a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d b yf a i l i n g t o a wa r d h i m a thr ee- poi ntr educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . H e cont ends thathe s houl d r ece i ve a r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t ybeca us e he di d notdenythathe w as gui l t yof th e d ru g tra f

f ick in g o f f e n se c o n tain e d in C o u n t I– h e so u g h t o n lyto w ith d ra w h is g u ilty pl ea t o the murde rchar ge–and be caus e the off ens e l evel cal cul at i on appl i ed onl yt o C ount I. U n d e r th e G u id e lin e s, a tw o -le v e l re d u c tio n in d e f e n d a n t’s b a se o f

f e n se lev e l is perm i t t ed “[ i ] f the def

endantcl ear l ydemonstr at es a r ecogni t i on and af fi r m at i ve ac ce p tanc e o f p erso n al resp o n sibil ityfo r his crim inal co n d u ct. ” U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 (a). 1 B ec au se th e “ sen tenc ing jud g e is i n a u n iqu e p o sit ion to ev alua te a d ef en d an t’ s a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty. . . the d e ter m in a tio n o f th e se n ten c in g ju d g e is e n tit led to g re a t d e f e re n c e o n re v ie w a n d s h o u ld n o t b e d is tu rb e d u n le s s it is w ith o u t f o u n d a tio n .” U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1 ( comm ent ary , not e 5) . T ypi cal l y , the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual d e ter m in a tio n th a t a d e f e n d a n t d id n o t ac c e p t re sp o n sib ili tysh o u ld b e d istu rb e d o n lyif c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s , U

ni t ed Stat es v. C i ans cewski , 894 F. 2d 74, 83 ( 3d C i r . 1990) , but b e c a u s e H e rn a n d e z d id n o t p re s e rv e th is c la im , w e re v ie w th e is s u e f o r p la in e rr o r, s ee- 11 -

U n itedS ta tes v . C e

fa ra tti , 2 2 1 F . 3 d 5 0 2 , 5 1 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). D u rin g H e rn a n d e z ’s g u iltyp lea c o llo q u y , h e a d m itt e d u n d e r o a th , in r e lev a n t p a rt, to th e f o llo w in g : (1 ) h e w a s re sp o n sib le f o r d istrib u tin g a n d p o ss e ss in g w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e atl eas t35 gr ams butl es s t han 50 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne; ( 2) he knew an i ndi vi dual named C es arSever i no; ( 3) betw een i n oraboutM ay2006 and J ul y2006, S e v e rin o su p p lied h im w ith c ra c k c o c a in e ; (4 ) o n Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 S e v e rin o su p p lied h im w i th appr oxi m at el y28 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne; ( 5) H ernandez s ol d s om e of thatcr ack co ca ine in the a rea o f 3 2 n d an d P ierce stree ts; (6) S ev erino h ad su p p li ed w ith h im p o o rqual i tycr ack c ocai ne; ( 7) H ernandez confr ont ed Sever i no aboutthe poor - qual i t ycoca i ne a n d S e v e rin o to ld h im h e w o u ld re p lac e it; a n d (8 ) o n Ju ly8 , 2 0 0 6 , H e rn a n d e z w e n t to Sever i no’ s hom e t o di s cus s t he l ow - qual i t ycoca i ne. O n D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , w h e n h e tes tifie d in su p p o rt o f h is m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is gui l typl ea, H ernandez m ade the fol l ow i ng s t at ement s underoath: ( 1) he w as r eadyand w i l l i ng t o t ake a 120- m ont h pl ea f orthe r ol e i n t he drug cas e “unl es s the governm entt r i es to f ile s o m e typ e o f

e n h a n c e m e n ts, 8 5 1 s, c a re e r o f f e n d e rs o r a n ytyp e o f

p e n a lty ” in w h ich c ase h e w o u ld m o v e to w ith d raw h is plea; (2) h e n ev er m et S ev erino ; ( 3 ) th ere w er e phone c al l s betw een hi m and Sever i no; ( 4) he w as at t empt i ng t o buydrugs fr om Sever i no by“tr y i ng t o getw i t h hi m and meet i ng hi m s om ew her e”; ( 5) he neve rs ucce eded atm eet i ng w i t h Sever i no and thus Sever i no di d nots uppl yhi m w i t h drugs ; and ( 6) he s houl d be cha r ged w i t h at t em pt i ng t o buydrugs fr om Sever i no beca us e ther e w as no- 12 -

p ro o f th a t h e a c tu a lly b o u g h t d ru g s f ro m S e v e ri n o . T h u s, g iv e n th e c o n f

lictin g sta tem e n ts m a d e b yH e rn a n d e z , o n e c a n n o t re a d ily c o n c lu d e th a t, de sp ite th e f a c t th a t h e d id n o t m ove to w ith d raw h is gu il typ lea to C o u n t I , H ernandez has acc ept ed r es pons i bi l i t yforthe off ens e of c ons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne. “A defe ndants eeki ng a r educt i on for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t ybear s t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thathe ors he i s ent i t l ed t o t he r educt i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B oone , 279 F. 3d 163, 193 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hatthi s adj us t m enti s avai l abl e “i f the defe ndantcl ear l ydemonstr at es a r ecogni t i on and af fi r m at i ve ac cept ance of per s onal r es pons i bi l i t yforhi s cr i m i nal conduct . ” C i ans cewski , 8 9 4 F .2 d a t 8 3 (c itin g U .S .S .G . § 3E 1. 1( a) ) ( di s t r i ctcourtdi d notcl ear l yerrw her e r ecor d r efl ect ed thatdefe ndantr efus ed to c o o p e ra te w ith th e p ro b a tio n o f f ice r d u rin g th e p re p a ra tio n o f th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt, fai l ed t o s how up forhi s or i gi nal s ent enci ng hear i ng, m ai nt ai ned thr ough s ent enci ng t hat h e w a s e n tra p p e d ); U

nited S tates v. D eL eon -Ro drigu ez, 70 F. 3d 764, 767 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yr educt i on pr oper l ydeni ed bec aus e def endantw as cont es t i ng fac tual and l egal gui l t ) . A tthe hea r i ng, H ernandez deni ed the keyfac tr el at i ng t o t he drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e–namel yt hatSever i no everpr ovi ded hi m w i t h drugs . I ns t ead, he t es t i fi ed thathe att empt ed t o “gett ogether ” w i t h Sever i no, butthat , i n fac t , theynever engage d i n anyt r ans act i ons . I n l i ghtof thi s t es t i m ony , i tw oul d be har d t o concl ude that H ernandez w as i n fac tacc ept i ng r es pons i bi l i t yfordi s t r i but i ng and pos s es s i ng w i t h i nt ent- 13 -

t o di s tr i but e atl eas t35 gr ams, butl es s than 50 gr ams, of cr ack c ocai ne. T hus , the di s tr i ct cour tdi d notcl ear l yerri n deny i ng H ernandez a tw o- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of re s p o n s ib ility. II I. Fort hes e r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence