2003 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
10-20-2003 

# U S A v . S ie r r a P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2836

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . S ie r r a" (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 198. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/198NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNIT ED STA TES C OURT OF A PPE AL FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-2836
UNIT ED STA TES OFAMERI CA,

v. KEVI N M. S IE RRA, a/ k/ a KI LLSWI TCH, Kevin M. Sierra,

Appellant
On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Crimi nal No. 00-cr -00407-1) Distri ct Judge: Hon. Bruce W. Kauffman
Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

September 16, 2003 BE FO RE : M CK EE , SM ITH and CO W EN , Circuit Judges (Fil ed October 20, 2003)
OPI NION
CO W EN , Circuit

Judge
.2

Kevin M. Sierra appeals fr om the judgment of c onvicti on and sentenc e of the United States District Court for the Eas tern Dis tri ct of Pennsy lvania . He seeks t he
over turning of this judg men t on the grou nds th at the D istrict Co urt faile d to ex plain in proper det ail t

hat his guilt

y pl ea would necessaril y r esult in a mandatory mini mum prison term of fiv e years regardless of h is assistance to the go vernm ent and the govern ment’s dep ar tu re mot io n. We wil l a ffirm. I. A g ran d ju ry retu rne d a s eve n-c oun t ind ictm ent a gain st Sie rra o n Ju ly 12, 2 000
. According to Count

One, Sierr a violated 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1) by knowingly and intent ionall y poss essing wit

h the intent to di stribute approxi mately398 grams of
me tham phe tam ine. Sierra entered int o a written plea agreement. He agreed to plead guiltyto the first
coun t of the indictm ent an d to co oper ate w ith the g over nm ent. T he go vern men t agree d to
mo ve fo r the dis missa l of the other c oun ts if it deter mine d that S ierra ha d fu lfilled his obligations of coope ration. The g overnm ent wo uld also m ake a m otion for de parture from the U nited S tates Se ntenc ing G uidelin es pu rsuan t to U .S.S.G . § 5K 1.1 if it “determines that

the defendant

has provi ded complete and substant ial a ssis tance i n the investigati on or prosec ution of another per son who has committe d an offense, includi ng testify ing at any t

rialor proceedi ng as requi red.” J t. App. at 20A-21A. The agreement also st ated that “[t ]he defendant underst ands and agree s that the government

does not3

intend to move for departure from anystat utorymandatoryminimum term of imprisonm ent.” Jt. App. at 21 A. It provide d notice of a max imum sentence o f 40 years and a “f ive- year m and ator y term of in carc erati on.” Jt. A pp. a t 22 A. Sie rra e nter ed a gui lty plea at a c han ge o f ple a he arin g on Sep tem ber 10, 2 001
. During the government’s summaryof the pl ea agreement , the following e xchange
occu rred b etwe en A ssistant U nited S tates A ttorney C hristine E . Sykes, the Distric t Cou rt, and Sierr a: [MS. SYK ES:] The plea a greement which t he Government and Mr. Sierr a have entered into e xplici tly states that

Mr. Sierr a underst ands and agrees w ith the Gov ernmen t, that the [sic] does not inten d to mo ve for a departure under Section 3553 of Section -- of United States Code Section 18, wh ich wo uld perm it the Court to de part from th e statutory mandato ry minimum that applies. THE COURT: Is th er e a s ta tu to rymand at or y min imu m? MS . SYKE S: There is, Your Honor, it is five y ears in this case with regard to Count 1, and that is base d on the fact

that t he amount of methamphetam ine which M r. Sierr a possessed was mo re than 50 grams. In addition, both p arties agree und er -- TH E C OU RT : Excuse me. Y ou und erstand that, that they’re going to -- they mo ve und er 5(k)1, w hich w ould perm it the Court to de part from the Guide lines, but not und er 3553 (e), which w ould perm it the Court to dep ar t f

ro m th e s ta tu to rymand at or y min imu m? TH E D EFE ND AN T: Ye s, sir. TH E C OU RT : Ver y well. Jt. A pp. a t 40 A- 41A
. The Distri ct Court t

hen asked Sy kes to notifySierr a of the poss ible maxi mum sentence, no ting that the prosec utor had alrea dy indicated the app licable man datory minimum. The prosec utor st ated that the maximum sentence i s impri sonment for 404

year s with a fi ve-y ear mandatory t erm of incarceration. When asked whether he underst ood these pos sibl e penalties, Sierr a responded byinquiring about “ the ori ginal sentence .” Jt . App. at

45A. The following di scussi on then occurred: M S. SY KE S: C ertainly, Y our H ono r. I wo uld b e glad to state it again. U nder the statute -- THE DEF ENDANT : 40 y ears, is that what y ou’re sayi ng? MS . SYKE S: Under the statute the mandatory maximum -- excuse me, the maxi mum sentence would be 40 y ears i mprisonment. The mandatoryminimum period of i ncarcer ation i s five y ears, a fine of $2 mill ion or bot

h, at least four y ears of s upervis ed rele ase and $100 speci al assess men t. TH E C OU RT : Do you un derstand -- TH E D EFE ND AN T: Ye s, Your H onor. TH E C OU RT : -- the maxim um p enalties now , sir? THE DEF END AN T: Yes. Jt. App. at 45A-46A. Sier ra furt her indi cated that he had di scussed t he maximum and
man datory m inimu m p enalties with his attorn ey and u nder stood the po ssible consequences of a

guilt y pl ea. The Distri ct Court a lso aske d Sierr a’s then-counsel , Stephe n Patri zio, Esq., about his clien t’s com peten ce to e nter a p lea. Pa trizio ind icated that he had n o do ubts a s to competence and emphasi zed that Sierr a underst ands “the ba sis for departure and how far [sic].” Jt. App. at 53A . Accord ing to the attorney, Sierra intende d to mo ve for de parture at sentencing base d on such grounds as personalcircumst ances. He added:

. . . I just wanted him to be as sured that bypleadi ng guilt y her e today we can stil l rai se the i ssues of departur e for othe r basi s, but the Gov ernmen tal departure really has that floor of five years, and he’s v ery much aware of that . Is that c orrect , Mr. Sier ra? THE DEF END AN T: Yes, it is.5

Jt. App. at 53A. Sy kes, Pat rizi o, and the District Court agreed that Sier

ra unders tood the
ma xim um and ma nda tory m inim um pen alties
. Sierra appe ared for a se ntencing h earing on J une 13 , 2002. Th e District Cou rt granted t he government’ s motion t o dismis s allcounts of t he indic tment except

Count One as well as its mo tion for dep arture unde r U.S.S.G . § 5K1 .1. The D istrict Court observed that no moti on for depart ure was made pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. §3553(e) and t hat the government

remained unwil ling “to go any l ower than 60 months i n departi ng dow nwa rd.” Jt. App. at 72 A. Patrizio ag reed w ith the District Cou rt that the statutory minimum sentence of 60 months or fi ve years must be i mposed. Patrizio briefl y ar gued for a 6 0-m onth term o f imp risonm ent, an d Sie rra as w ell as sev eral oth er indiv iduals aske d fo r lenien cy. The D istrict Co urt imp osed a sen tence of 6 0 m onth s imp risonm ent, five years o f su per vise d re leas e, a $ 250 0.00 fine , and a sp ecia l asse ssm ent o f $1 00.0 0. Sie rra a ppe aled
. II. We have juris dicti on over thi s appeal pur suant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because of a fail ure to r aise t

his obj ecti on before the District Court , Sier ra must satis fy t

he plai n error stan dar d of rev iew
. See, e. g., Unit ed State s v. Dixon , 308 F.3 d 22 9, 23 3 (3 d C ir. 20 02)
. He mu st demonstrate that “‘ (1) an error was committed; (2) the err or was plain, that i s, clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected t

he defendant’ s subst antia l ri ghts. ’” Id. at 234 (quoti ng Uni te d St

ates v. Sy me , 276 F.3d 131, 143 (3d Cir. 2002) (i nternalquotati ons1 Rule 11 was su bseque ntly revised to require notification o f “any man datory

min imu m p ena lty.” Fe d. R . Cri m. P . 11( b)(1 )(I). 6 omitted)). Even if these three elements are establ ished, an appellate court is to exercis e its discr etion to order cor recti on of the rul ing “only if the error

‘seri ouslyaffect[s ] the fairne ss, i ntegri ty , or publ ic reput ation of judici al proce edings. ’” United Stat es v. Stevens , 223 F.3d 239, 242 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting United Stat es v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732 (19 93) ). W e sh oul d ex am ine th e en tire re cor d an d no t me rely the plea collo quy. See, e.g. , Dixon , 308 F.3d at 234. Before accepting a guil ty plea, a tri al judgemust inform the defendant of any mandatoryminimum penalty and ens ure that he or she under stands t his penal ty . At the time of Si erra’ s plea and s entenci ng, FederalRule of CriminalProcedure 11( c) requi red: Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant

personal ly in open court and inform the defendant of, and determ ine tha t the de fend ant un dersta nds, th e follo win g: (1) . . . th e m and ator y min imu m p ena lty prov ided by law , if an y[.] 1 According to Si erra, the Dist rict Court fai led to i nform him of the unequi vocal nature of the fi ve-y ear mandatory mini mum penaltyapplic able i n this case and di d not determi ne whether he under stood the non-dis creti onary charact eris tic of this minimum penalty. He specifi call y contends that the Dist rict Court shoul d have clearly distinguis hed the Sente ncing Guidel ines fr om the stat utorymandatoryminimum sentence and explai ned that t he five- year

sentence applie d notwiths tanding e ither his cooper ation or

any moti on for d epartu re un der U .S.S.G . § 5K 1.1. Sie rra’s cla im of error is w ithout m erit.7

Sierra was clearlyinformed that a mandatory minimum sentence applied regardless of h is su bsta ntial assis tanc e to th e go ver nm ent a nd t he g ove rnm ent’ s m otio n to dep art. The writt en plea agr eement plac ed Sierr a on notic e that he faced at l east a f

ive-y ear mandatoryterm of i ncarcer ation. He further under stood “t hat the government does not intend to move for departure from anystat utorymandatoryminimum term of imprisonm ent.” Jt. App. at 21 A. Sierra w as again no tified of the statutory man datory minimum on a number of occasi ons at bot h the change of pl ea and the s entenci ng hearings . At the change of plea he aring, he indic ated that he under stood and di scussed the possible penal ties with his attorney. The Distri ct Court e xpressl y as ked him whether he und erstood that the g overnm ent wo uld not sub mit a mo tion under 2 8 U.S .C. § 335 3(e), “w hich w ould perm it the C ourt to d epart f rom the statu tory man datory m inimu m.” Jt. App. at 41A. Sie rra ans wered in the affirmative. He also was aware that “the Governm ental departure real ly has t hat floor of five year s.” Jt. App. at 53A. U nder these circumst ances, hi s request for leni ency di d not necess aril y r eveal hi s ignorance or misu nder stand ing o f the m anda tory minim um senten ce. O n the c ontrar y, it suppor ted his
cou nse l’s ul tima tely suc ces sfu l arg um ent f or th e low est p oss ible s ente nce of 6 0 m ont hs. Even if the District Court committed obvious error, Sierra has failed t o establish that t his er ror affec ted his substant ial rights . This e lement gener ally requires a defendant to demonstr ate that the error was prejudi cial because i t affected the out come of the pro cee din gs b efo re th e dis trict c our t. See, e. g., Dix on , 308 F.3d at 234. Sier

ra does not8

address t his i ssue of pre

judice . He never spec ific ally clai ms that he wo uld or even might have rej ected a gui lty

plea i f the Dist

rict Court had provi ded all of the al legedl y r equired info rma tion
. See, e. g., id. at 234-35 ( rejec ting as sertion of prej udice fr om erroneous statem ents o f ma ximu m se ntenc e). Th e D istrict Co urt acc ordin gly did no t com mit
rev ersib le err or. III. Fo r the for ego ing reas ons , the ju dgm ent o f the Dis trict C our t ente red on J une 19, 2002 will be a ffirmed.

/s/ Robert E. Cowen United States Circui t Judge