2010 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 10-13-2010 

# U SA v . B ri an D ' Alfonso 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 . 10-2294

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_2010

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 2010 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 . B ri an D ' Al fon s o " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 441. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/4411

B L D - 304 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. 10- 2294

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. BR I AN D’ AL F ONS O, 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 . N o. 03- cr - 00746) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed fora C ert i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i tyorPoss i bl e S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 Sept ember30, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober13, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM B ria n D ’A lf

o n so a p p e a ls f

ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n s to2

w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea a nd forbai l . W e w i l l aff i r m . See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4 ( 2008) ; 3d C ir . I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . I. In 2 0 0 4 , D ’A lf

o n so p lea d e d g u iltyto six tee n c o u n ts o f m a il fra u d a n d f

o u r c o u n ts o f th e s a le o f

u n re g is te re d s e c u ri tie s in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1 a n d 1 5 U .S .C . § 7 7 e (a )(2 ), re sp e c tiv e ly . H is p lea a g re e m e n t co n tain s a p ro v isio n w a iv in g h is rig h t to ap p ea l and co ll aterall yatt ac k h is sen tenc e. O n F eb rua ry2 , 2 0 0 5 , the D istri ct C o u rt s e n te n c e d D ’A lf

o n s o to a n a g g re g a te s e n te n c e o f s e v e n ty-f

iv e m o n th s o f

im p ri s o n m e n t. D ’ A l fons o appea l ed, and w e di s m i s s ed hi s appea l on the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce hi s w ai verof hi s appel l at e r i ght s . U ni t ed St at es v. D ’ A l fons o, 3d C i r . C . A . N o. 05- 1363 (M ay2 7 , 2 0 0 5 o rde r). I n 2007, D ’ A l fons o fi l ed a mot i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255. H e al l eged, among otherthi ngs , thatthe pr os ecut i on us ed the per j ur ed t es t i m onyof i nform ant s E ugene C a rp in o a n d G a b rie l S a n to su ss o b e f o re th e g ra n d ju rya n d f a iled to d isc lo se c e rta in crim inal co n d u ct th at m igh t hav e b ee n u sed to im p ea ch them at tri al. T h e D istri ct C o u rt appoi nt ed couns el , conduct ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng, and ul t i m at el ydi s m i s s ed D ’ A l fons o’ s § 2255 m ot i on aft erfi ndi ng thathi s w ai verof col l at er al att ack r i ght s i n the pl ea a gr eementw as know i ng and vol unt aryand thatenfor cementof the w ai verw oul d not gi ve r i s e t o a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. W e deni ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty . U ni t ed S tat es v . D ’A lfo n so , 3 d C ir . C . A . N o . 0 8 -22 9 8 (S ep . 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 o rde r).We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w a 1 gu i l typlea and d enial of b ai l pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. S ee U nit ed S t at es v. Jones, 336 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( m ot i on t o w i thdr aw ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sm i th, 835 F. 2d 1048, 1049 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ( bai l ) . W e gene r al l yr evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o w i thdr aw a g u il typ lea f

o r ab u se o f d iscreti o n , see U n it ed S tat es v . K ing , 6 0 4 F . 3 d 1 2 5 , 1 3 9 (3d C ir . 2010) , though w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. See U ni t ed St at es v. T ol i ver , 330 F. 3d 607, 610 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f b a il a s w e ll. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . B arn es, 32 4 F . 3 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 0 -41 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 3 D ’A l fon so l at er fi l ed the m oti on s ati ssue here, the fir stof w hich he cap t i on ed as a

“ m o tio n to w ith d ra w g u iltyp lea .” D ’A lf o n so a g a in a ss e rte d th a t th e p ro se c u tio n w ith h e ld evi dence conce r ni ng C arpi no and Sant os us s o and ther ebys ecur ed hi s gui l typl ea unde r

“ f a l s e p r e t e n s e s . ” D’ Al f

o n s o a l s o f

i l e d a mo t i o n f

o rb a i l o re x p e d i t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n . By order ent ered A pri l 29 , 20 10 , the D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed b oth m oti on s. D ’A l fon so app eal s. 1 II. W e fi nd no err ori n t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of D ’ A l fons o’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw h is g u iltyp lea . T h e D istric t C o u rt a p p e a rs to h a v e tre a ted th e m o tio n a s o n e u n d e r R u le 1 1 o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re . A s th e D istric t C o u rt e x p lain e d , the ru le pr ovi des that , “af

t erthe courti m pos es s ent ence , the def endantm aynotw i thdr aw a pl ea of gui l tornol o cont ender e, and the pl ea maybe s etas i de onl yon di r ectappea l orcol l at er al att ack. ” Fed. R . C r i m . P. 11( e) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfur thernot ed thatD ’ A l fons o al r eady h as f il ed b o th an ap p ea l and a c o ll ateral att ac k to n o av ail . T h u s, itco n clud ed that “[ w ]e m aynots etas i de D efe ndant ’ s gui l typl ea ba s ed on the i ns t antm ot i on. ” W e agr ee. See4

al s o U ni t ed St at es v. G ar duño, 506 F. 3d 1287, 1289- 90 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( deemi ng m ot i on to w ith d raw p lea a fter se n tenc e u n ti m elyu n d er R u le 11 ). O ne furtherobs ervat i on i s i n or der . A l though D ’ A l fons o capt i oned hi s m ot i on as one “t o w i thdr aw gui l typl ea, ” the D i s tr i ctC our tm i ghthave c ons trued i tas another m ot i on under§ 2255. So cons trued, D ’ A l fons o’ s m ot i on w oul d cons t i tut e a s econd or s ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on thatw e have notauthor i zed the D i s tr i ctC our tt o cons i der . See 2 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 4 4 (b )(3 ), 2 2 5 5 (h ). T h u s, th e D istric t C o u rt w o u ld h a v e b e e n o b lig a ted to di s m i s s the mot i on ortr ans feri tt o thi s C our tt o be tr eat ed as a § 2244 appl i cat i on for l eave t o fi l e a s econd § 2255 mot i on. See R obi ns on v. J ohns on, 313 F. 3d 128, 139- 40 ( 3d C i r. 20 02 ). W e see no need t o rem and for such tr eat m ent i n thi s case, ho w ever, becau se th e D istric t C o u rt’s tre a tm e n t o f th e m o tio n a n d a p p lica tio n o f R u le 1 1 (e ) e f

f e c tiv e ly p re v e n te d D ’A lf

o n s o f ro m c ir c u m v e n tin g th e s e g a te -k e e p in g re q u ir e m e n ts . F i nall y , w e al so fi nd no err or i n the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of b ai l . D ’A l fon so s o u g h t b a il u n d e r R u le 4 6 (c ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f

C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3143( a) , w hi ch, as the D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned, appl yonl yt o bai l pendi ng s ent enci ng or appea l , both of w hi ch al r eadyhave oc curr ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our t . T o the ext entt hat D ’ A l fons o’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea mi ghtbe cons trued as a § 2255 mot i on, and t o the ext entthata ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tym i ghtbe r equi r ed t o appea l the deni al of thatm ot i on, a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyi s deni ed forthe r eas ons s t at ed her ei n.