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. 08- 2580 N o. 08- 3681 N o. 08- 4575 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . F E L I X OR T I Z - GAR CI A, ENR I QU E RA M OS- SAN CH EZ, CA ESAR H ERN AN DEZ, A p p e llan ts O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 1- 07- cr - 103- 004) ( D . C . N o. 1- 07- cr - 103- 003) ( D . C . N o. 1- 07- cr - 103- 002) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es III Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

on N ovember17, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , A L D I SE R T and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 8, 2010)

OPI NI ON OF TH E CO UR TT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have 1 appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. 2 A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. D efe ndant - A ppel l ant s Fel i x O r t i z- G ar ci a, E nr i que R amos- Sanchez and C aes ar H ernandez appea l fr om j udgm ent s of convi ct i on ent er ed and s ent ence s i m pos ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. A ft ereac h appel l ant ’ s arr es ton 1 drug- r el at ed cha r ges , eac h pl ed gui l typur s uantt o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementw i th the U ni t ed St at es G overnm ent , eac h w as s ent ence d bythe H onor abl e J ohn E . J ones I I I , and eac h appea l ed. Subse quent l y , couns el forO r t i z- G ar ci a and c ouns el forH ernandez m oved t o w i thdr aw pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , eac h as s ert i ng thatno nonfr i vol ous ar gum entcan be m ade i n thi s C our t . A ppoi nt ed couns el forR amos- Sanchez h a s f ile d a b ri e f

o n th e m e ri ts . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. O n F e b ru a ry6 , 2 0 0 7 , Ju stin R a u d e b a u g h d ied f ro m in g e stin g h e ro in lac e d w ith f e n t a n y l , a s yn th e t i c o p i o i d a p p r o x i ma t e l y1 0 0 t i me s mo r e p o t e n tth a n h e r o i n . On February15, 2007, K r i s t i n Podol s ki di ed fr om i nges t i ng the s ame. E ach vi ct i m w as found w i th i ndi vi dual her oi n packa ges s t amped “D evi l ’ s R ej ect , ” and a n i nves t i gat i on ens ued. G o v e rn m e n t a g e n ts le a rn e d f ro m tw o s o u rc e s th a t O rt iz -G a rc ia , k n o w n a s “ A n d y ,” w as s el l i ng her oi n fr om hi s r es i dence i n H arr i s bur g. T her eaf t er , a conf

i dent i al i nform ant3

pur chas ed “D evi l ’ s R ej ect ” her oi n fr om O r t i z- G ar ci a i n a contr ol l ed buy . Pol i ce obt ai ned a w arr antt o s ear ch O r t i z- G ar ci a’ s r es i dence and r ecove r ed a ha ndgun, fourbundl es of

“ D e v i l ’ s R e

j e c t ” h e r o i n a n d $ 8 8 0 i n c a s h , i n c l u d i n g m a r k e d b i l l s f r o m th e c o n tr o l l e d b u y. L a b o ra to rytes ts c o n f

irm e d th a t th e h e ro in c o n tain e d f e n tan y l. A ft erhi s arr es t , O r t i z- G ar ci a w ai ved hi s M i r anda r i ght s and admi t t ed thathe had been s el l i ng her oi n s i nce 2006. H e admi t t ed thathe s ol d her oi n t o Podol s ki , butdeni ed s el l i ng t o R audeba ugh. O r t i z- G ar ci a i m m edi at el ybegan c ooper at i ng w i th the G overnm ent and i den t i fi ed R am os-Sanc hez as o ne o f his supp l i ers . O n F e b ru a r y 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , I s a a c K e n n e d y a n d K a ty R h o a d s d i e d f r o m a c u t e f

e n t a n yl to x icity . In v e stig a to rs d e ter m in e d th a t T h o m a s S w e g e r h a d su p p lied th e f e n tan y l to K e n n e d y, a n d S w e g e rw a s a r r e s t e d a f t e rh e s o l d a g e n t s p u r e f e n t a n yl i n a c o n tr o l l e d b u y. S w eger w ai ved his M i randa ri gh t s and inform ed ag ents that hi s suppli er w as R am osS a n c h e z . A g e n ts a d d iti o n a llylea rn e d th a t a ju v e n ile h a d so ld h e ro in to R h o a d s s h o rtly befor e herdeath. W hen conf r ont ed, the j uveni l e conf es s ed and i dent i fi ed R amos- Sanchez as h is sup p li er. O n M ar ch 7, 2007, agent s m ade a contr ol l ed buyfr om R amos- Sanchez us i ng a confi dent i al i nform ant . Subse quent l y , agent s w entt o the R amos- Sanchez r es i dence , obt ai ned cons entt o s ear ch, and found thr ee ounc es of fe nt any l . R amos- Sanchez w as a d v ise d o f

h is rig h ts a n d c o n f

e ss e d , co n f

irm in g th a t h e h a d b e e n su p p ly in g h e ro in to O rt iz -G a rc ia , S w e g e r, t h e ju v e n ile a n d o th e rs .4

R amos- Sanchez r eport ed thathi s ow n s our ce of s uppl yw as “A ventur a, ” l at er id e n tifie d a s C a e sa r H e rn a n d e z . A g e n ts a rre ste d H e rn a n d e z o n Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 7 in P h ilad e lp h ia a n d o b tain e d a c o n f e ss io n . H e rn a n d e z a d m itt e d th a t h e su p p lied h e ro in to R a m o s-S a n c h e z , ac tin g a s a m id d lem a n b e tw e e n R a m o s-S a n c h e z a n d lar g e r h e ro in s uppl i er s . H ernandez confi r m ed thathe had be en s uppl y i ng her oi n t o R amos- Sanchez everytw o t o t hr ee w eeks dat i ng back t o 2006. O n M ay9, 2007, a gr and j uryi n H arr i s bur g r eturned a thi r t een- counts uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entchar gi ng C aes arH ernandez , E nr i que R amos- Sanchez , Fel i x O r t i z- G ar ci a and o th e r s w i th m u l t i p l e c o u n t s r e l a t i n g t o th e u n l a w f u l d i s tr i b u t i o n o f

h e r o i n a n d f

e n t a n yl and cons pi r acyt o do the s ame. T he i ndi ctm ental l eged thatthe def endant s ’ conduct c a u s e d th e d e a th s o f

f o u r i n d iv id u a ls . Al l th r e e d e f

e n d a n t s e n t e r e d i n t o p l e a a g r e e me n t s wi th th e Go v e rn me n t , th e t e r ms of w hi ch var i ed. C om m on t o al l agr eement s , eac h defe ndantagr eed t o cooper at e w i th t he G overnm ent , w hi ch i n turn w oul d m ove fora dow nw ar d departur e fr om the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes forcooper at i on amount i ng t o “s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . ” See U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1. E ach p l ed g uil ty , each w as sent enced , and each n ow app eal s. II. F e lix O rtiz- G a rc ia, N o. 08- 2580 Pur s uantt o hi s agr eementw i th the G overnm ent , on O ct ober23, 2007, O r t i zG ar ci a pl ed gui l tyt o C ount s 3 and 13 of the s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm ent . C ount3 char ged the5

unl aw ful di s tr i but i on of her oi n and fe nt any l i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , w hi ch carr i ed a s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence of 20 y ear s . C ount13 char ged hi m w i th m aki ng m at er i al l yfal s e s t at ement s t o t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof H ous i ng and U rban D e v e lo p m e n t b yc o n c e a lin g h is d ru g tra f f ick in g a c tiv iti e s w h ile liv in g in f e d e ra lly s ubs i di zed hous i ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 1101 and 1102, puni s habl e byup t o 10 y ea rs’ i m p ri so n m en t. A fter a len g thyco ll o q u yat th e p lea c h an g e h ea ri n g , the C o u rt acc ept ed O r t i z- G ar ci a’ s pl ea. A s agr eed, the G overnm entm oved ats ent enci ng fora dow nw ar d departur e, pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1, i n r ecogni t i on of O r t i z- G ar ci a’ s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . T h e C o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n a n d d e p a rte d 5 9 m o n th s b e lo w th e o th e rw ise -a p p lica b le G u idelines ran g e, a g rea ter de p arture th an the G o v ern m en t had rec o m m en d ed . A fter a det ai l ed col l oquy , O r t i z- G ar ci a w as s ent ence d t o 151 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed by s upervi s ed r el eas e, and r es t i tut i on. A l l otherchar ges w er e di s m i s s ed. A g a in st c o u n se l’s a d v ice , O rtiz- G a rc ia o rd e re d c o u n se l to f ile th e in sta n t ap p e a l. T h ere af ter, O rt iz-G arc ia’s co u n sel m o v ed to w ith d raw as c o u n sel p u rsua n t t o T h ir d C i r cui tL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2, att es t i ng thathe coul d noti dent i fyanynonfr i vol ous ar gum ent s t o r ai s e bef

or e thi s C our t . I n s uppor tof thatm ot i on, he has fi l ed a s uppl ement arybr i ef w i th t hi s C our t , as r equi r ed underA nder s . See U ni t ed St at es v. Y o u la, 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 -30 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (cit ing A n d ers, 38 6 U . S . at 74 5 ). A d d it ion all y , co n sist en t w ith A n d ers, O rt iz-G arc ia w as f u rnish ed a c o p yo f c o u n sel’s6

br i ef a nd w as i nform ed of hi s r i ghtt o r ai s e addi t i onal poi nt s vi a an i nform al br i ef. O r t i zG ar ci a has notdone s o. In A n d e rs, th e S u p re m e C o u rt e sta b lish e d g u id e lin e s f o r a law y e r se e k in g to w ith d ra w f

ro m a c a se w h e n th e in d ig e n t cr im in a l d e f e n d a n t h e re p re se n ts w ish e s to pur s ue fr i vol ous ar gum ent s on appea l . Y oul a, 241 F. 3d at299 ( ci t i ng A nder s , 386 U . S. at 7 4 5 ). If a f ter a c o n sc ien tio u s e x a m in a tio n o f th e re c o rd , co u n se l d e ter m in e s th a t h is c lien t’s c a se is w h o llyf riv o lo u s, h e sh o u ld a d v ise th e c o u rt a n d re q u e st p e rm iss io n to w ith d raw . Id. In a d d it ion , co u n sel m u st fil e a n A n d ers b ri ef w h ich: (1) sa ti sfies th e c o u rt thatcouns el has thor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d i n s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues ; and ( 2) e x p lain s w h ye a c h a rg u a b lya p p e a lab le is su e is f riv o lo u s. Id . at 3 0 0 . O u r L o c a l A p p e llate R ule 109.2( a) tracks these requir em ents . W hen an ap peal pr oceed s und er A nd ers , ou r i nq uiryi s tw ofo l d. F i rs t , w e m ust evaluat e w hethercou nsel ’s bri ef fu l fi l l s the A nd ers requi rem ents . Id. S econ d, w e asses s wh e th e ra n i n d e p e n d e n tr e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d p r e s e n t s a n yn o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e s . I d . I f

we agr ee thatthe appe al i s w i thoutm er i t , w e w i l l gr anttr i al couns el ’ s A nder s m ot i on and d i s mi s s th e a p p e a l wi th o u ta p p o i n t i n g n e w c o u n s e l . I d . ( c i t i n g Th i r d Ci r c u i tL. A. R. 109. 2( a) ) . B ycontr as t , i f w e fi nd anyof the l egal poi nt s ar guabl e on thei rm er i t s ( and ther efor e notfr i vol ous ) , w e mustaff or d the i ndi gentthe as s i s t ance of couns el t o ar gue the ap p ea l. Id. (qu o ti n g A n d ers, 38 6 U . S . at 74 4 ). O urr evi ew s at i s fi es us thatthe br i ef s ubm i t t ed byO r t i z- G ar ci a’ s couns el m eet s t he7

A nder s r equi r ement s . C ons i s t entw i th A nder s , couns el fi l ed a thor ough br i ef that dem on strat es he ha s consci enti ou sl yexam i ned the record i n search of a pp eal able i ssues. C ouns el i dent i fi es thr ee i s s ues thatm i ghtar guabl ys uppor tan appe al : ( 1) s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on; ( 2) the val i di tyand vol unt ar i nes s of O r t i z- G ar ci a’ s gui l typl ea; and ( 3) the l egali tyof the sent ence. Th ereaft er, cou nsel exp l ai ns w hyeach is sue i s fr i vo l ou s. A s t o j ur i s di ct i on, couns el ar gues thatanyobj ect i on w oul d be fr i vol ous beca us e a fede r al offe ns e w as char ged. W e agr ee. A s t o pl ea va l i di ty , couns el ar gues thatthe C our t ’ s pai ns t aki ng col l oquyens ur ed the vol unt ar i nes s of the pl ea, cons i s t entw i th the governi ng s t andar ds of B oyki n v. A l abama, 395 U . S. 238 ( 1969) , and R ul e 11 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. D ir ec ti n g u s to the relev an t po rt ion s o f th e tran scripts, co u n sel arg u es th at th e C o u rt ’s col l oquyas s ur ed thatO r t i z- G ar ci a under s t ood the cha r ges , the G overnm ent ’ s fac tual al l egat i ons , the r i ght s he w ai ved bypl eadi ng gui l ty , the mi ni m um and maxi m um t erm s of i m pr i s onm ent , the advi s orynatur e of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , and the ci r cumst ance thathi s pl ea c oul d notbe w i thdr aw n. T her eaf t er , the C our texpr es s l yfound thatO r t i zG ar ci a ent er ed the pl ea vol unt ar i l yand under s t ood both hi s r i ght s and the cons equenc es of en t eri ng a gu i l typlea. C ou nsel con t end s that this proced ure ensured t he v olunt ari ness o f O rt iz -G a rc ia ’s p le a a n d th a t a n ya rg u m e n t to th e c o n tr a ry w o u ld b e f ri v o lo u s . W e agr ee. W i th r es pectt o s ent enci ng, couns el ar gues thatthe thor ough s ent enci ng col l oquy8

f o re c lo se s a n ya rg u m e n t th a t th e se n ten c e w a s e ith e r p ro c e d u ra llyf law e d o r su b sta n tiv e ly un reas on able. P ri or t o the heari ng , the C ou rtgrant ed O rt i z-G arci a’s m oti on t o fo recl ose the G overnm entfr om i ntr oduci ng evi dence thathi s conductcaus ed R audeba ugh’ s death, m aki ng hi m l egal l yr es pons i bl e onl yforPodol s ki ’ s death. T hen, atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, the C our tpr oper l yper form ed the thr ee- s t ep s ent enci ng pr ocedur e r equi r ed under U ni t ed St at es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he C our t( 1) arr i ved ata 210- t o 262- m ont h G ui del i nes r ange us i ng an off ens e l evel of 37 and a cat egoryI - l evel cr i m i nal hi s t ory ; ( 2) rul ed on out s t andi ng m ot i ons and adj us t ed the G ui del i nes r ange acc or di ngl y ; and ( 3) thor oughl ycons i der ed ea ch of the r el evants ent enci ng fac t or s under 2 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). S e e id . F in a lly , co u n se l o b se rv e s th a t O rtiz- G a rc ia’ s 1 5 1 -m o n th se n ten c e , w h ich w a s a t th e lo w e n d o f th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w a s s u b sta n tiv e lyre a so n a b le i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s , and part i cul ar l y , the s er i ous nes s of the cr i m e and the re s u ltin g d e a th . W e a g re e . A ft erexami ni ng couns el ’ s br i ef, w e conc l ude thati tappea r s adequa t e on i t s fac e. A d d iti o n a lly , o u r o w n in d e p e n d e n t re v iew sa tisf ies u s th a t n o n o n f

riv o lo u s a p p e a lab le i s s ues exi s t . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on forw i thdr aw al , di s m i s s O r t i zG ar ci a’ s appea l and af

fi r m hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence .

III . E nr i que R amos- Sanchez , N o. 08- 3681 Pur s uantt o hi s w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementw i th the G overnm ent , on N ovember8,9

2007, R amos- Sanchez pl ed gui l tyt o C ount12 of the s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm ent , char gi ng a con spi racyt o d i stri bu t e heroi n an d fen t any l that caused t he d eat hs of f ou r i nd i vidual s. T he cha r ged off

ens e ca r r i ed a maxi m um s ent ence of l i fet i m e i m pr i s onm ent , and the in itia l G u id e lin e s ra n g e w a s 2 4 0 to 2 6 2 m o n th s . A ts ent enci ng, the G overnm entm oved fora dow nw ar d departur e i n the G ui del i nes r ange pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1, i n r ecogni t i on of R amos- Sanchez ’ s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . T he C our tgr ant ed the mot i on fora 30- m onth dow nw ar d departur e, r educi ng the G ui del i nes r ange t o 210 t o 262 m onths . T her eaf t er , the C our tent ert ai ned ar gum ent fr om both s i des , cons i der ed R amos- Sanchez ’ s pl ea f orl eni ency , and r evi ew ed compre hens i vel ythe § 3553( a) fac t or s . A ft era det ai l ed col l oquy , the C our ts ent ence d R amos- Sanchez t o t he G ui del i nes m i ni m um of 210 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed by s upervi s ed r el eas e, and r es t i tut i on. R amos- Sanchez appea l ed. U nli ke co un sel for O rt i z-G arci a and cou nsel for H ernand ez, cou nsel for R am osS a n c h e z d id n o t m o v e to w ith d ra w a n d in ste a d h a s f iled a b rie f

o n th e m e rits. T h ro u g h h is appoi nt ed couns el , R amos- Sanchez cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s s ent enci ng d isc re tio n in im p o sin g a se n ten c e th a t w a s b o th p ro c e d u ra llyf law e d a n d su b sta n tiv e ly unr eas onabl e. See J ones , 566 F. 3d at365- 366. I n part i cul ar , he as s i gns err ort o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o “pr oper l yand s uffi ci ent l ycons i derappel l ant ’ s s ubs t ant i al cooper at i on w i th t he governm ent ” and the unw arr ant ed di s par i tybetw een hi s s ent ence a n d th a t o f

c o d e f e n d a n t O rt iz -G a rc ia . (R a m o s -S a n c h e z B r. 9 (c itin g 1 8 U .S .C . §10

3 5 5 3 (a )).) W e d isa g re e a n d h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its c o n sid e ra b le s ent enci ng di s cr et i on. T he C our t ’ s s ent enci ng pr ocedur e w as a t extbook appl i cat i on of the thr ee- s t ep sent encing p rocess w e ann ou nced i n G un t er, 46 2 F . 3d at24 7. B efore i m po si ng R am osSanchez ’ s s ent ence , the C our t( 1) cal cul at ed a 240- t o 262- m onth G ui del i ne r ange ba s ed o n a n o f f e n se lev e l o f

3 8 a n d a c a teg o ryIII-le v e l cr im in a l h isto ry ; (2 ) ru led o n b o th part i es ’ out s t andi ng m ot i ons , gr ant i ng a 30- m onth dow nw ar d G ui del i nes departur e for s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance ; and ( 3) adequa t el ycons i der ed the r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s . See i d. I n i t s § 3553( a) anal y s i s , the C our ts peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed O r t i z- G ar ci a’ s ar gum entfor a furtherdow nw ar d departur e gi ven hi s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance , hi s acc ept ance of resp o n sibil ity , an d the m o re len ient sen tenc e o f h is co d ef en d an t O rt iz-G arc ia. T h e C o u rt car eful l yexpl ai ned i t s r eas ons fordecl i ni ng t o departfur therfr om the G ui del i nes r ange, e m p h a siz in g th e se v e rityo f th e o f f e n se , R a m o s-S a n c h e z ’s c rim in a l h isto ry , an d h is in v o lv e m e n t in c o n d u c t th a t u lti m a telyre su lted in f o u r d e a th s. T h e e x ten siv e c o llo q u yis m or e than pr ocedur al l yadequa t e. In a d d it ion , the s en tenc e im p o sed w as su b stan ti v elyrea so n ab le. T h e C o u rt s ent ence d R amos- Sanchez t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entatthe l ow end of the G ui del i nes r ange, aft ergr ant i ng a 30- m onth dow nw ar d departur e. T o the ext entthatR amos- Sanchez ar gues thi s dow nw ar d adj us t m ents houl d have be en gr eat er , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thatcl ai m . U ni t ed St at es v. T orr es , 251 F. 3d 138, 145 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “[W ] e l ack11

juri sd ict ion to rev iew the e x tent o f a D istri ct C o u rt ’s discre ti o n aryd o w n w ard d ep arture f o r s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e to th e g o v e rn m e n t.” ). M or eover , the di s par i tybetw een the s ent ence s of O r t i z- G ar ci a and Ram os - Sanchez w as w arr ant ed. O r t i z- G ar ci a’ s 151- m onth s ent ence – a 59- m onth departur e fr om the G uidel i ne rang e of 2 10 t o 2 62 m on ths – refl ect ed the ci rcum st ances t hat he w as a cat egoryI - l evel cr i m i nal offe nderand had c aus ed the dea th of onl yone i ndi vi dual . U nl i ke O rt i z-G arci a, R am os-Sanc hez h ad a ca t ego ryII I- l evel cr i m i nal hi st oryand an o ffen se l evel of 38 , he w as a “dealer ’s dealer , ” and he w as l egall yres po nsi ble for four deat hs. ( G ov’ t/ R amos- Sanchez A pp. 107. ) T he C our tcons i der ed R amos- Sanchez ’ s ar gum ent s for l eni ency , butdet erm i ned thatthe ci r cumst ance s di d notw arr anta furtherdepartur e fr om th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . In o u r v iew , the D istric t C o u rt a c ted w e ll w ith in its d isc re tio n in s ent enci ng R amos- Sanchez t o 210 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , a t erm 30 m onths bel ow the G ui del i nes m i ni m um . W e w i l l aff i r m R amos- Sanchez ’ s convi ct i on and hi s s ent ence .

IV C aes arHer nandez , N o. 08- 4575 Pur s uantt o hi s pl ea a gr eement , on J une 2, 2008, H ernandez pl ed gui l tyt o C ount 1 2 o f th e su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t, w h ich c h a rg e d c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te h e ro in a n d f e n tan y l. A l though H ernandez ’ s advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange w as 168 t o 210 m onths , bas ed on an off ens e l evel of 35 and a cat egoryI - l evel cr i m i nal hi s t ory , the s t atut orym i ni m um12

s e n t e n c e wa s 2 0 y e a r s . T h e r e f o r e , th e Gu i d e l i n e s a d v i s o rys e n t e n c e wa s 2 4 0 mo n th s . As agr eed, the G overnm entfi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1, r ecomm endi ng a 30- m onth dow nw ar d departur e i n r ecogni t i on of H ernandez ’ s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o t he G ov ernm ent. T he C ou rtgrant ed the m oti on and i m po sed a sentence of 2 10 m on ths’ i ncar cer at i on, fol l ow ed bythr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and r es t i tut i on. H ernandez appea l ed. L i ke couns el forO r t i z- G ar ci a, H ernandez ’ s couns el m oves thi s C our tt o w i thdr aw a s c o u n s e l , p u r s u a n tt o L . A. R. 1 0 9 . 2 , a n d h a s f i l e d a n An d e r s b r i e f

wi th th i s Co u r t . As d iscu ssed ab o v e, w e inq u ir e f ir st w h ethe r co u n sel’s brief ad eq u atelyfu lfi ll s the A n d ers r equi r ement s , and s econd, w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s any no nfri vo l ou s i ssues. S ee Y ou l a, 24 1 F . 3d at29 9 (ci t i ng A nd ers , 38 6 U . S . at74 5). B ecause H e rn a n d e z f

iled a n in f

o rm a l b rie f

, w e m u st c o n sid e r h is a rg u m e n ts a s w e ll. U n lik e c o u n se l f

o r O rtiz- G a rc ia, H e rn a n d e z ’s c o u n se l “h a s n o t p ro v id e d u s w ith s uffi ci enti ndi ci a thathe has expl or ed al l pos s i bl e i s s ues forappea l . ” M arvi n, 211 F. 3d at 781. T o begi n, couns el purpor t s t o i dent i fyfourar guabl yappea l abl e i s s ues : ( 1) j ur i s di ct i on, ( 2) pl ea va l i di ty , ( 3) s ent ence l egal i ty , and ( 4) i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , butneveraddr es s es the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on. A l though the fe der al char ges ati s s ue r enderthe j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue mani fes t l yfr i vol ous , thi s om i s s i on l eave s u s w ith d o u b ts a s to th e th o ro u g h n e s s o f c o u n s e l’ s re v ie w . M os tpr obl emat i cal l y , couns el ’ s br i ef s har es m os tof the def i ci enci es thatdoom ed13

the A nder s br i ef i n Y oul a, 241 F. 3d at299- 301. T her e w e r ej ect ed an A nder s br i ef that cont ai ned a mer e tw o pages of ar gum ent , ci t ed l i t t l e orno cas e l aw , and di d notm ent i on the ar gum ent s r ai s ed i n t he appe l l ant ’ s i nform al br i ef. I d. M uch l i ke the br i ef i n Y oul a, H ernandez ’ s A nder s br i ef c ont ai ns a mer e tw o pages of ar gum ent , pr ovi des onl yone ci t at i on t o t he r ecor d, and ci t es l egal author i t i es cur s or i l yand w i thoutr efe r ence t o the un derl y i ng fact s. C ou nsel ’s fai l ure t o en gag e w i th the gov erni ng l egal autho ri t i es i s m ost pr obl emat i c i n hi s “ana l y s i s ” of the pr ocedur al pr opr i etyof H ernandez ’ s s ent enci ng. A lth o u g h c o u n se l’s b rie f a c k n o w led g e s U n ited S tate s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), it i gnor es ourpr ece dent s i n J ones , 566 F. 3d at366, and G unt er , 462 F. 3d at247, w hi ch d e s c r i b e th i s Co u r t ’ s me th o d f o rr e v i e wi n g a d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s s e n t e n c i n g d e c i s i o n s . An A n d e rs b rie f

is in su f f icie n t if it f

a ils to a n a ly z e th e iss u e s o r “ a rg u e [ s] th e p u rp o rte d ly fr i vol ous i s s ues aggr es s i vel yw i thoutexpl ai ni ng the fa ul t s i n the ar gum ent s . ” M arvi n, 211 F. 3d at781. I n ourvi ew , Y oul a comm ands the conc l us i on thatthe A nder s br i ef s ubm i t t ed b yH e rn a n d e z ’s c o u n se l is in su f f icie n t. G iven thes e ina d eq u ac ies, w e m u st r ejec t cou n sel’s A n d ers b ri ef u n less w e a re co n v ince d that “f

ri v o lou sn ess is p aten t. ” Id . W e a re. A fter co n side ri n g H ern an d ez ’s i nform al br i ef a nd conduct i ng ourow n r evi ew , w e ar e per s uaded thatH ernandez can p re se n t o n lyp a ten tlyf

riv o lo u s is su e s f

o r a p p e a l. W e fi r s taddr es s the ar gum entr ai s ed i n H ernandez ’ s i nform al br i ef, namel y , that hi s pl ea w as notknow i ng and vol unt ary . H ernandez , w ho s peaks no E ngl i s h, had an14

i nt erpr et erathi s pl ea- change and s ent enci ng hear i ngs , butcont ends thathe di d not under s t and the cha r ges agai ns thi m . H ernandez al s o cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad a dutyt o appoi nthi m a bi l i ngual att orney . H e ar gues fur therthathe agr eed t o the pl ea bar gai n i n r el i ance on hi s att orney ’ s as s ur ance thatthe dea l pr ovi ded for“a s ent ence of n o tl e s s th a n f

i v e ( 5 ) y e a r s a n d n o mo r e th a n ( 1 0 ) y e a r s . ” ( He rn a n d e z Br . a tp t . I I . ) He co n tend s tha t eac h o f th ese circu m stan ce s d ep ri v ed h is plea o f it s v o lun tarych ara cter. W e di s agr ee. T o over come hi s E ngl i s h- l anguage di ffi cul t i es , H ernandez had the b e n e f it o f a n in terp re ter , an d th e C o u rt p a u se d th e p ro c e e d in g s a t lea st tw o tim e s w h e n it a p p e a re d H e rn a n d e z n e e d e d a d d iti o n a l as sis tan c e . (G o v ’t/H e rn a n d e z A p p . 5 , 7 .) W h ile underoath, H ernandez ans w er ed af fi r m at i vel ythe C our t ’ s ques t i on w hetherhi s att orney h ad ex p lai n ed the p lea a g ree m en t para g rap h -by -pa rag rap h , w ith the a id o f a tr an slat o r. ( I d. at7. ) L i kew i s e, he ans w er ed af fi r m at i vel ythe C our t ’ s ques t i ons w hetherhe ( 1) under s t ood the cha r ge and the el ement s of the off ens e ( i d. at4, 16) ; ( 2) agr eed t o the co n tents o f th e p lea a g ree m en t ( id. at7 -8); (3) w as v o lun tari lyp lead ing g u il ty(i d . at 10 ); ( 4) knew the mi ni m um and maxi m um t erm s of i m pr i s onm ent( i d. at11- 12) ; ( 5) knew he w as l i kel yt o be deport ed ( i d. at11) ; ( 6) agr eed w i th the G overnm ent ’ s fac tual al l egat i ons (i d . at 20 ); an d (7) d esired to f o reg o a jurytr ial (i d . ). H e a n sw ere d n eg ati v elythe C o u rt ’s ques t i ons w hetherhi s deci s i on t o pl ead gui l tyw as i nduced bythr eat s , pr om i s es , for ce or offe r s . ( I d. at10. ) B as ed on thi s r ecor d, i tw oul d be pat ent l yfr i vol ous t o ar gue that H ernandez ’ s pl ea w as i nvol unt arybeca us e he di d notunder s t and Engl i s h. W e al s o fi nd15

fr i vol ous H ernandez ’ s as s ert ed r i ghtt o a bi l i ngual att orney . T hi s C our thas not rec o g n ized su ch a righ t. S ee G o v ’to f V . I. v . M arti n ez , 8 4 7 F . 2 d 1 2 5 , 1 2 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). W e al s o di s m i s s H ernandez ’ s cont ent i on thathi s pl ea w as r ender ed i nvol unt aryby h is a tto rn e y ’s a lle g e d a s s u ra n c e th a t h e w o u ld re c e iv e a f iv e - t o te n -ye a r s e n te n c e . W e have he l d that“[a ] n err oneous pr edi ct i on of a s ent ence bydefe ndant ’ s couns el does not r endera gui l typl ea i nvol unt ary , ” part i cul ar l yw her e the “[ d] efe ndantacknow l edged w hen pl eadi ng thathe w as aw ar e thathe coul d be s ent ence d t o [the maxi m um t erm of im p ri so n m en t] . ” S ee M asc iola v . U n it ed S tat es, 46 9 F . 2 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 5 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 2 ). H er e, the C our texpr es s l yi nform ed H ernandez of the 20- y ears t atut orym i ni m um s ent ence and of the no n-bi nd i ng natur e of b oth part i es’ sent encing recom m end at i on s. ( G ov’ t/ H ernandez A pp. 10- 11, 12, 14- 15. ) A ddr es s i ng H ernandez , the C our tas ked: “A nd do y ou under s t and thatno one ca n guar ant ee y ou the ac tual s ent ence thaty ou’ l l getfr om m e , tha t th a t’s u p to m e ? ” (Id . at 1 1 .) H e rn a n d e z re p lied : “Y e s.” (Id .) T h e re c o rd sim p ly does nots uppor tanynonfr i vol ous ar gum entthatcouns el ’ s al l eged a s s ur ance s r ender ed H e rn a n d e z ’ s p l e a i n v o l u n t a r y. Fi nal l y , t o t he ext entw e ca n cons true H ernandez ’ s br i ef t o al l ege i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l, th a t ar g u m e n t ca n n o t b e ra ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, as th e re c o rd is i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor ts uch a c l ai m . See U ni t ed St at es v. H eadl ey , 923 F. 2d 1079, 1083 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H ernandez r emai ns fr ee t o r ai s e thi s ar gum entvi a a pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255.W e a re d isa p p o in ted in th e A n d e rs b rie f a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t’s b rie f , w h ich b o th 2 c o n f id e n tly a s s e rt th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s c o llo q u yc o m p lie d w ith R u le 1 1 . Be c a u s e He r n a n d e z l o d g e d n o Ru l e 1 1 o b j e c t i o n i n th e p l e a c h a n g e h e a r i n g , we 3 r evi ew thes e R ul e 11 vi ol at i ons forpl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. V onn, 535 U . S. 55, 59 ( 2002) . “Pl ai n err orr equi r es thatther e mustbe ( 1) err or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n orobvi ous , and ( 3) thataff

ect s a def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . I f al l thr ee c ondi t i ons ar e met , an appel l at e courtm aythen exe r ci s e i t s di s cr et i on t o not i ce afor fei t ed err or , butonl yi f ( 4) the err ors er i ous l yaff

ect s the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed St at es v. G oods on, 544 F. 3d 529, 539 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng J ohns on v. U ni t ed St at es , 520 U . S. 461, 467 ( 1997) ) ( al t er at i ons and i nt ernal ci t at i ons o m itt e d ). T h e b u rd e n is o n th e d e f e n d a n t to p e rsu a d e u s th a t an ye rro r a f f e c ted h is s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . U ni t ed St at es v. A dams, 252 F. 3d 276, 285 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I n the c o n t e x to f

a l l e g e d l yp l a i n e r r o ru n d e rRu l e 1 1 , He rn a n d e z wo u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o “ s h o w a re a s o n a b le p ro b a b ility th a t, b u t f o r t h e e rr o r, h e w o u ld n o t h a v e e n te re d th e [ g u ilty] p le a .” B eni t ez, 542 U . S. at83. 16 W e a re p e rsu a d e d b yo u r o w n in d e p e n d e n t re v iew th a t n o n o n f riv o lo u s a p p e a lab le i s s ues exi s t . A l though w e not e the C our tdi d notcompl yper fec t l yw i th R ul e 11 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, thes e s hor t comi ngs w er e i ns uffi ci entt o r endert he pl ea i nvol unt ary . I n part i cul ar , the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o expl i ci t l yi nform H ernandez 2 o f: (1 ) h is rig h t to p e rsis t in h is p lea o f n o t g u ilty , R u le 1 1 (b )(1 )(B ); (2 ) h is rig h t to couns el ateverys t age of tr i al and appe l l at e pr ocee di ngs , R ul e 11( b) ( 1) ( D ) ; and ( 3) the C our t ’ s author i tyt o or derr es t i tut i on, R ul e 11( b) ( 1) ( K ) . B utbeca us e no R ul e 11 obj ect i on w as l od ged atthe h eari ng , these err ors do no trender H ernand ez’s plea i nv olunt aryun l ess H ernandez can “ s how a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforthe err or , he w oul d nothave e n ter e d th e [ g u ilty ] p lea .” U n ited S tate s v . B e n itez , 5 4 2 U .S . 7 4 , 8 3 (2 0 0 4 ). O n th is 3 r ecor d, w e conc l ude thathe ca nnotdo s o. A lth o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ex p licitlyin f o rm H e rn a n d e z o f

h is rig h t to17

per s i s ti n hi s pl ea of

notgui l ty , the C our tm ade i tcl earthatthe purpos e of the pl ea c hange hear i ng w as t o det erm i ne w hetherH ernandez w oul d choos e t o pl ead gui l tyornot . ( See, e. g. , G ov’ t/ H ernandez A pp. 15 ¶ 14- 25. ) O urr evi ew per s uades us thatH ernandez under s t ood hi s r i ghtt o pl ead notgui l ty . T hi s R ul e 11 err or , ther efor e, di d notaff ect H ernand ez’s subst anti al ri gh t s. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso f a iled to in f

o rm H e rn a n d e z o f

b o th th e C o u rt’s a u th o rityto o rd e r re stitu tio n a n d h is rig h t to a n a tto rn e ya t all sta g e s o f th e p ro c e e d in g s. R u le 11( b) ( 1) ( D ) , ( K ) . A l though t hes e l aps es cl ear l ycontr avene R ul e 11, the r ecor d does not s ugges ta r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , abs entthes e err or s , H ernandez w oul d nothave pl ed g u il ty . S ee B en it ez , 5 4 2 U . S . at 83 ; U n it ed S tat es v . L o v ett , 8 4 4 F . 2 d 4 8 7 , 4 9 2 (7th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s f a ilu re to in f

o rm th e d e f

e n d a n t o f

h is rig h t to couns el w as harm l es s ) . H ernandez w as r epr es ent ed byappoi nt ed couns el atthe t i m e he e n ter e d h is p lea , su g g e stin g h e w a s a w a re o f a n in d ig e n t d e f

e n d a n t’s rig h t to r epr es ent at i on i n cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs . M or eover , H ernandez pl ed gui l tyaft erbei ng i nform ed thatthe C our tcoul d fi ne hi m up t o $4 m i l l i on, s ugges t i ng hi s deci s i on t o pl ead g u il tyw o u ld n o t be a ff

ec ted b ythe p rosp ec t of p ay ing resti tuti o n . In v iew o f H ern an d ez ’s c l e a rs t a t e me n tth a th e c o mmi t t e d th e c r i me c h a r g e d a n d th e myr i a d e v i d e n c e a g a i n s th i m, w e d o n o tb e l i e v e e i th e ro f th e s e e r r o r s a f

f e c t e d h i s d e c i s i o n t o p l e a d g u i l ty. O urr evi ew addi t i onal l yper s uades us thatH ernandez ’ s s ent enci ng w as fr ee of err or . A s w as pr ocedur al l yr equi r ed underG unt er , 462 F. 3d at247, the C our t( 1) arr i ved18

atan advi s oryG ui del i nes poi ntof 240 m onths bas ed on the s t atut orym i ni m um s ent ence o f 2 0 y ea rs; (2) g ran ted th e G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r a 3 0 -m o n th d o w n w ard d ep arture underU . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1, r educi ng the G ui del i nes poi ntt o 210 m onths ; and ( 3) cons i der ed eac h of the r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s . ( G ov’ t/ H ernandez A pp. 15. ) T he C our ti m pos ed a 210- m onth s ent ence , expl ai ni ng thatthe s ent ence w as w arr ant ed gi ven the s ever i tyof the offe ns e; H ernandez ’ s r es pons i bi l i tyforthe dea ths of fouri ndi vi dual s ; the nee d for deterrence; the n eed to prot ectthe p ub l i c; and the sentences of H ernand ez’s cod efen dan t s, w ho w er e l ow er - l evel deal er s . T he C our tnot ed H ernandez ’ s l ack of cr i m i nal hi s t oryand h is p lea f o r le n ien c y , b u t d e ter m in e d “ th e re is u tterlyn o th in g in f ro n t o f m e th a t w o u ld c a u se m e to v a ryf

ro m th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e ra n g e .” (I d . at 1 7 .) In o u r v iew , this col l oquyw as pr ocedur al l ypr oper , and the r es ul t i ng s ent ence – 30 m onths bel ow the s t atut orym i ni m um – w as s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. N otw i ths t andi ng the i nadequa cyof couns el ’ s A nder s br i ef, w e conc l ude that H ern an d ez is un ab le t o raise an yn o n frivo lou s arg u m en ts. W e w il l th ere fo re a f f irm H e rn a n d e z ’s c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e , an d w e w ill g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w . * * * * * W e h a v e c o n sid e re d a ll co n ten tio n s p re se n ted b yth e p a rties to a ll th re e a p p e a ls a n d c o n c l u d e th a tn o f

u rth e rd i s c u s s i o n i s n e c e s s a ry. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm ent s of the D i s tr i ctC our tand19

gr antthe A nder s m ot i ons of couns el forO r t i z- G ar ci a and H ernandez .