T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata an d co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r11,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. F I L I P E F RA NC O- GUI L L E N, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3122 (D i stri ctof K ansas) ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 1 0 1 9 3 - M LB)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re M UR P HY , M c KAY , and GORS UCH , C ir c u it J u d g e s . A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. F o llo w in g a ju rytrial, F e lip e F ra n c o -G u ill e n w a s c o n v icte d o f a sin g le countof i l l egal r eentr yaft erdepor t at i on fol l ow i ng convi ct i on foran aggr avat ed- 2-

fe lo n y , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ), (b )(2 ). F ra n c o -G u ill e n a p p e a ls h is c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e , c o n t e n d i n g c e r t a i n c o m m e n t s c o n n e c t i n g h i s e th n i c i ty and a pr opens i tyforl y i ng m ade bythe di s tr i ctcour tj udge cr eat ed a s uffi ci ent appea r ance of bi as thatthe j udge s houl d have su a sp o n te r ecus ed hi m s el f pur s uant to 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 (a). Fr anco- G ui l l en and the governm entor i gi nal l yent er ed i nt o a pl ea agr eement . D ur i ng the pl ea c ol l oquy , Fr anco- G ui l l en ac know l edged in tera lia thatno pr om i s es had bee n m ade a s t o the s ent ence he w oul d ul t i m at el yr ece i ve an d that h e w as fac ing a tw en ty -y ea r m ax im u m p en alty . T h e d istri ct co u rt acc ept ed the gui l typl ea. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, the di s tr i ctcour tas ked F ran co -G u il len if h e w as sa ti sfied w ith the c o n tents o f th e p rese n tenc e re p o rt ( “PSR ”) . Fr anco- G ui l l en expr es s ed, thr ough an i nt erpr et er , ei thers urpr i s e, frus tr at i on, and/ ordi s s at i s fac t i on w i th the s ent enci ng r ange s etouti n the PSR ; he fur thers t at ed hi s att orneyhad i ndi cat ed he w oul d r ece i ve a s ent ence of betw een tw el ve and f

i ft een mont hs . I n r es pons e, the di s tr i ctcour tabrupt l y , and w i thout anyexami nat i on of the r eas ons forFr anco- G ui l l en’ s di s cont ent , s etas i de the gui l typl ea a nd or der ed the ca s e t o tr i al . T he col l oquyats ent enci ng i ndi cat es as foll ow s: T H E C O U R T : Is th e re a n yth in g in th e [ P S R ] th a t y o u w a n t to c h a n g e o r c o rre c t? I N T E R PR E T E R W O R T H I N G O N : I w oul d j us tl i ke the oppor tuni tyt o s peak be for e I ’ m s ent ence d.- 3- T H E C O U R T : B uty ou’ r e s at i s fi ed w i th the cont ent s of the [P S R ]? IN T E R P R E T E R W O R T H IN G O N : N o t v e ryw e ll. T H E C O U R T : W hat ’ s ther e i n thi s [PSR ] thaty ou ar e not s at i s fi ed w i th? I NTE RP RET ER WORTHI NGO N: Be c a u s e th e o th e rt i me befor e I came t o court , I r eac hed an a gr eementw i th m yatt orneythat w e w e re w ith a n a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n 1 2 a n d 1 5 m o n th s. T h e c o n tra c t, w h e n I c a m e h e re , w e sig n e d th a t 1 2 to 1 5 m o n th a g re e m e n t. T H E C O U R T : W hat ? Y ou di dn’ ts i gn anyagr eementthat s ai d— w i th [defens e couns el ] thats ai d thaty ou w er e gonna s erve 12 to 1 5 m o n th s. W h e re is a c o p yo f th a t? IN T E R P R E T E R W O R T H IN G O N : N o , w e h a d a n a g re e m e n t. T H E C O U R T : O h y e a h . L iste n , I’m se tti n g th is a sid e . T h is is g o in g to tr ia l. I w i l l not put up w i t h t hi s from t hes e H i s pani cs or a n y b o d y else, an y o th er d efe n d a n ts . Y ou di dn’ thave a nyki nd of agr eementl i ke thatw i th [couns el ] . [C ouns el ] pr obabl ym ayhave gi ven y ou s om e i dea of w hathe thoughty ours ent ence w as ; butw hen I t ook y ourgui l typl ea, y ou t ol d m e underoath thaty ou under s t ood th a t w h a tev e r h e to ld y o u w a s m e re lyh is a d v ice a n d w a s n o t a p ro m is e . N o w , I’ m n o t p u ttin g u p w ith th is . I’ ve g ot an other c ase i n v o l v i n g a Hi s p a n i c d e fe n d a n t w h o c a me i n h e r e a n d t o l d me t hat he und ers t ood w hat w as goi ng on an d t hat ever y t hi ng w as fi ne and n ow I ’ ve got a 2255 from hi m s ay i ng he can’ t s peak Engl i s h. A nd he i s l yi ng be c aus e he t ol d m e he c oul d. So th i s — th e p l e a a g r e e me n ti s s e ta s i d e . Yo u ’ r e g o i n g t o t r i a l my f r i e n d . W h e n c a n yo u b e r e a d y. [P R O S E C U T O R ]: Y o u r H o n o r— T H E C O U R T : A nd l etm e t el l y ou thi s , s i r . Y ou’ ve gota l ong pr i s on r ecor d and y ou’ ve gotm or e al i as es t han I ’ ve s een a nybody have e xceptone i ndi vi dual dow n i n L as C ruces , N ew M exi co, and y o u a re fa c in g 2 0 y e a rs if y o u ’re c o n v icte d b ya ju ry . W h e n c a n th is c a se b e re a d yfo r tria l? [P R O S E C U T O R ]: Justw i thin a m at t er of t en d ay s or l ess, Y o u r H o n o r. T H E C O U R T : S e t th e c a s e . W e ’l l n o tif yy o u w h e n it’ s re a d y . N o b o d yc a n c o m e in h e re a n d lie to m e a n d g e t aw a yw ith it. T her eaf t er , the di s tr i ctcourts um m ar i l ydeni ed Fr anco- G ui l l en’ s addi t i onal re q u e s ts to w a iv e a ju ry tria l a n d to h a v e th e m a tte r t ri e d to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .T he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed that“the U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyi s t he 1 repr esent at i ve n ot of an o rdi narypartyt o a co ntr ov ers y , bu tof a so verei gn w ho se o b lig a tio n to g o v e rn im p a rtiallyis a s c o m p e lli n g a s its o b lig a tio n to g o v e rn a t all; and w hos e i nt er es t , ther efor e i n a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on i s nott hati ts hal l w i n a cas e, butthatj us t i ce s hal l be done. ” Str i cklerv. G r een , 527 U . S. 263, 281 ( 1999) . W e l aud the governm entatt orney s i n thi s cas e forl i vi ng up t o thathi gh s t andar d.

- 4- A ft erthe j uryconvi ct ed Fr anco- G ui l l en of i l l egal r eentry , the di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed Fr anco- G ui l l en’ s r eques tfora r educt i on i n hi s offe ns e l evel foracc ept ance of re s p o n s ib ility a n d s e n te n c e d F ra n c o -G u ille n to a te rm o f fo rt y -s ix m o n th s , a s ent ence i n the mi ddl e of the advi s or ys ent enci ng r ange. O n a p p e a l, F ra n c o -G u ill e n a ss e rts th e d istric t co u rt’s r e fe re n c e s to h is ethn ici ty , esp ec ial lyw h ere tho se c o m m en ts seem to li n k F ran co -G u il len’s e th n icityw ith a p ro p e n sityto lie, c re a ted a n a p p e a ra n c e o f b ias su fficie n t to tr i ggera su a sp o n te dut yon t he partof the di s tr i ctcour tt o r ecus e pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 455( a) . I n an admi r abl e and appr eci at ed expr es s i on of ca ndor , the U ni t ed St at es agr ees that , al though t he r ecor d i s devoi d of anyi ndi cat i on of ac tual bi as , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s comm ent s cr eat ed a s uffi ci entappea r ance of bi as s o that Fr anco- G ui l l en’ s convi ct i on s houl d be vac at ed and the mat t err emanded for fur therpr ocee di ngs befor e a di ffe r entdi s tr i ctcour tj udge. 1

“ A n yju stic e , jud g e , o r m a g istra te ju d g e o f th e U n ited S tate s s h a ll d isq u a lifyh im se lf

in a n yp ro c e e d in g in w h ich h is im p a rtialitym ig h t re a so n a b ly be ques t i oned. ” 28 U . S. C . § 455( a) . B yi t s t erm s , § 455( a) ’ s r ecus al r equi r ement- 5-

ari ses su a sp o n te w h e n th e ju d g e ’s im p a rt ia lity m ig h t b e re a s o n a b ly q u e s tio n e d . Uni t ed Stat es v. P ears on , 203 F. 3d 1243, 1276 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . “The t r i al j udge m us tr ecus e hi m s el f w hen ther e i s the appe ar ance of bi as , r egar dl es s of w hether ther e i s actual bi as . ” B r yce v. E pis copalC hur ch , 2 8 9 F . 3 d 6 4 8 , 6 5 9 (10 th C ir . 20 02 ). “T he tes ti s w hethera reas on able pers on , kn ow i ng al l the rel evan tfact s, w oul d harbordoubt s aboutt he j udge’ s i m part i al i ty . ” Id. (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). T hi s cour tw i l l “cons i derthe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s w hen r evi ew i ng s uch c laim s, d isre g a rd in g th e ju d g e ’s a c tu a l sta te o f m in d , p u rityo f

h e a rt, i ncorrupt i bi l i ty , [and] l ack of par t i al i ty . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Lang , 364 F. 3d 1210, 1 2 1 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). T h e ju d g e ’s s tate m e n ts o n th e re c o rd w o u ld c a u se a re a so n a b le p e rso n to h a rb o r d o u b ts a b o u t h is im p a rtiality , w ith o u t re g a rd to w h e th e r th e ju d g e a c tu a lly h a rb o re d b ia s a g a in s t F ra n c o -G u ille n o n a c c o u n t o f h is H is p a n ic h e ri ta g e . See Li t eky v. Uni t ed Stat es , 510 U . S. 540, 555 ( 1994) ( gi vi ng as an exa m pl e of a n ap p ea ran ce o f b ias req u ir ing rec u sal w h en a tri al j u d g e in a W o rl d W ar I es pi onage c as e al l egedl ys ai d, “[o] ne musthave a veryj udi ci al m i nd, i ndeed, not [t o be] pr ej udi ced a gai ns tG erm an- A m er i cans ” bec aus e thei r“hea r t s ar e r eeki ng w i th di s l oy al ty ”) . W hen atthe i ni t i al s ent enci ng hear i ng the di s tr i ctj udge per cei ved thatFr anco- G ui l l en w as l y i ng abouthi s under s t andi ng of the pl ea agr eement , t he j udge s t at ed, “I w i l l notputup w i th thi s fr om thes e H i s pani cs or anybodyel s e, anyotherdefe ndant s . ” The j udge compounded the i m pr opr i etyof- 6-

his refer ence to defe nd ant’ s ethn i ci tyw hen he then st at ed: “I ’ve got anothercase i nvol vi ng a H i s pani c defendantw ho came i n her e and t ol d m e thathe under s t ood w hatw as goi ng on and thateverythi ng w as fi ne and now I ’ ve gota 2255 fr om hi m s ay i ng he ca n’ ts peak Engl i s h. ” W hi l e the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s s t at ement s m ay w el l r efl ectfrus tr at i on w i th Fr anco- G ui l l en’ s appar ent , al bei tunexpl or ed, c o n tra d ictio n s b e tw e e n th e c h a n g e o f p lea h e a rin g a n d th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , h is re fe re n c e to H isp a n ics a n d h is u se o f a n e x a m p le o f

a n o th e r H isp a n ic d e fe n d a n t in di s cus s i ng Fr anco- G ui l l en’ s per cei ved l ack of truthful nes s w oul d caus e a r eas onabl e per s on “t o harbordoubt s aboutthe j udge’ s i m part i al i ty ” i n thi s cas e. E x e rc isin g ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , this c o u rt reve rs es Fr anco- G ui l l en’ s convi ct i on and r e m ands t he mat t ert o the di s tr i ctcourtfor fur therpr ocee di ngs . U pon r emand, t he ca s e s houl d be r eas s i gned t o a di ffe r ent d istric t co u rt ju d g e w h o m u st v a c a te F ra n c o -G u ill e n ’s c o n v ictio n a n d b e g in p r o c e e d i n g s a n e w. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge