2005 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 11-16-2005 

# U SA v . Jaimes -Lop e z 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 . 04-3289

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_2005

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 2005 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 . J aime s -L opez " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 225. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/225NOT 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. 04- 3289
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M AR TI N J AI M ES- LOPEZ,

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 i nal N o. 04- cr - 00164 ( H onor abl e M aryA
. M cLaughl i n)
Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober17, 2005 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , V A N A N T W E R P E N a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: N ovember16, 2005)
OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge
. I n thi s cr i m i nal appea l i nvoki ng the Fi fth A m endment ’ s D ue Pr oces s cl aus e, A ppel l antM art i n J ai m es - L opez s eeks r emand forthe purpos es of r e- s ent enci ng. T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d t her e w as no due pr oces s vi ol at i on, and the governm entdi d notbi nd2

i t s el f t o r ecomm endi ng a dow nw ar d departur e fr om the appl i cabl e s ent ence underthe F e d e r a l S e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. T he fa ct s ar e undi s put ed. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es , an abbr evi at ed
r eci t at i on w i l l s uffi ce. A ft erbei ng arr es t ed i n N orr i s t ow n, Penns y l vani a on February3, 20 04 i n co nn ect i on w i th an al i en sm ug gli ng op erat i on , Jai m es- L op ez w ai ved his Mi r anda rig h ts a n d a g re e d to b e in ter v iew e d b yim m ig ra tio n a g e n ts. H e d e taile d to th o se a g e n ts th e e v e n ts le a d in g u p to h is a rre st, in c lu d in g h is c o n v e rsa tio n w ith h is p rim a ryc o n tac t, “N er o, ” i n coor di nat i ng the s m uggl i ng oper at i on. A ft erJ ai m es - L opez a dm i t t edl ygave fal s e i nform at i on, one i m m i gr at i on agentas ked hi m , “do y ou w antt o go hom e ordo y ou
w antt o go t o j ai l ?” Ja i m es - L opez r es ponded, “I w antt o go hom e. ” The agentr es ponded, “w el l , then, t el l m e the w hol e truth, ” af t erw hi ch J ai m es - L opez s ai d he t ol d them t he truth. A gent s then as ked hi m i f he w as w i l l i ng t o m ake a cal l t o “N er o, ” and, aft er J ai m es - L opez he s t i t at ed, t ol d hi m “come on, l et ’ s go, thi s i s goi ng t o hel p y ou a l ot . ” Jai m es- L op ez placed a call t o “N ero, ” w ho subsequ entl ym ade inculpat oryst at em ents . J a i me s - Lo p e z th e n me twi th a n As s i s t a n tUn i t e d S t a t e s At t o rn e y , a n d o f f e r e d s o me in f o rm a tio n a b o u t “N e ro ” a n d th e sm u g g lin g o p e ra tio n . W h e n a sk e d b yth e p ro se c u to r to obt ai n addi t i onal i nform at i on about“N er o, ” J ai m es - L opez de cl i ned.3

O n A pr i l 15, 2004, J ai m es - L opez e nt er ed an ope n gui l typl ea t o hi s i ndi ctm enton tw o c o u n ts o f

a lien sm u g g lin g in v io latio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 (a )(1 ). D u rin g th e g u ilty pl ea c ol l oquy , the D i s tr i ctC our ti nform ed J ai m es - L opez thatthe governm entw oul d not fil e a m o ti o n fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture o n h is be h alf. W h en ask ed b ythe D istri ct C o u rt
w h e th e r i t w a s “ c o rr e c t” th a t “ th e G o v e rn m e n t h a s n o t m a d e a n ya g re e m e n t w h a ts o e v e r,” J ai m es - L opez r es ponded, “Y es , y ourhonor
. ” W hen the governm ent , i n r es pons e t o a di s agr eementbetw een the part i es , s t at ed “I ’ ve i nform ed [de fens e couns el ] pr i ort o t oday th a t th is is a n o p e n p lea a n d h is c lien t w ill n o t re c e iv e a 5 (k ), an d th a t h e sh o u ld m a k e h is deci s i on w hethert o pl ead gui l tyornotbas ed on thati nform at i on, ” def ens e couns el
r es ponded “That ’ s corr ect , y ourH onor . I t ’ s i n no w aycondi t i onal upon anythi ng the G overnm enti s goi ng t o do. ” Pr i ort o s ent enci ng, J ai m es - L opez f i l ed a mot i on s eeki ng t o compel the governm entt o fi l e a mot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e ( § 5k1. 1 underthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ) , cl ai m i ng the age nt s w ho arr es t ed hi m pr om i s ed a r educe d
s e n te n c e f

o r h is c o o p e ra tio n . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d t he i m m i gr at i on agentl acke d author i tyt o bi nd the governm entand, beca us e the conve r s at i on w as partof “the norm al gi ve and t ake that happens t o agent s as they ’ r e t al ki ng t o peopl e” pr i ort o the A U SA ’ s i nvol vement , no actual pr om i s e had be en made. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d J ai m es - L opez t o 15 m ont hsW hetherthe i m m i gr at i on agent s had author i tyt o bi nd the governm enti s a ques t i on of 1 la w , a n d o u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. S e e Un i t e d S ta t e s v . I

g b o n wa , 1 2 0 F . 3 d 4 3 7 , 4 4 2 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). W hetherthe i m m i gr at i on agent s m ade a pr om i s e t o J ai m es - L opez i s a ques t i on of f a c t. W e re v iew f

o r c lea r e rro r. F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 2 (a ); I g b o n wa , 1 2 0 F .3 d a t 4 4 0 -4 1
. U nderthi s s t andar d, a fi ndi ng i s “cl ear l yerr oneous w hen the r evi ew i ng courton the ent i r e evi dence i s l eftw i th t he def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thata mi s t ake ha s been comm i t t ed. ” I

g b o n wa , 120 F. 3d at440 ( ci t i ng U nited S tates v. B og usz , 43 F. 3d 82, 85 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. W e “c ons i derw hetherther e i s enough evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o s uppor tthe fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the di s tr i ctcourt . ” Id
. at441 ( quot i ng C ooperv. T ard , 8 5 5 F .2 d 1 2 5 , 1 2 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ))
. W h e th e r th e g o v e rn m e n t’s d e c isio n n o t to f ile a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re m o tio n d id n o t v io la te d u e p ro c e s s is a q u e s tio n o f la w , a n d o u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. U ni t ed Stat es v. I s aac , 1 4 1 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 4 of i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed bya thr ee- y earper i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and w ai ved a
s peci al as s es s m entof $200. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. Ja im e s-L o p e z a p p e a ls c o n ten d in g (1 ) th e im m ig ra tio n a g e n ts’ re p re se n tatio n s to J ai m es - L opez bi nd the governm ent ’ s s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i ons , ( 2) the i m m i gr at i on
a g e n ts p ro m ise d h im a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re re c o m m e n d a tio n in re tu rn f o r h is
co o p era ti o n , an d (3) the g o v ern m en t’ s d ec isi o n n o t t o fil e a m o ti o n fo r do w n w ard dep arture vi olat ed d ue p rocess . 1 A. T h e g o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s a n yc laim e d a c tu a l o r a p p a re n t au th o ritym u st f a il i n l i ghtof w hattr ans pi r ed atthe t i m e of hi s gui l typl ea. T he r es pons es byJ ai m es - L opez a nd hi s l aw y er , the governm entar gues , ar e evi dence of J ai m es - L opez’ s l ack of r el i ance on t heT h e g o v e rn m e n t d o e s n o t co n ten d th e d e f e n d a n t w a iv e d th e iss u e a t th e tim e o f h is 2 g u ilty p le a . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. P t om ey , 366 F. 2d 759, 760 ( 3d C i r . 1966) ( “A pl ea of gui l tyi s a w ai verof al l nonj ur i s di ct i onal defe ct s and def ens es and cons t i tut es an a d m iss io n o f

g u ilt .”). B e c a u se th is m a tter w a s n o t b rie f e d , w e w ill n o t ad d re ss it. If th e re w e re a u th o ri ty h e re , it c o u ld o n ly b e a p p a re n t a u th o ri ty, n o t a c tu a l a u th o ri ty. 3 N onethel es s , w e doubtthatappar entauthor i tycoul d bi nd the governm ent ’ s s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i ons . H ow ever , beca us e thi s i s notes s ent i al t o ourdeci s i on, w e do not deci de the ques t i on. 5 agent s ’ s t at ement s . W e agr ee thatJ ai m es - L opez’ s r es pons e of “ Y es , y ourhonor ” t o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s ques t i on w hetheri tw as “corr ect ” that“the G overnm enthas notm ade a ny agreem ent w hats oev er” s tronglydem on strat es hi s l ack o f rel i ance o n an yof the agen t s’
s t at ement s . T hi s l ack of r el i ance i s s uppor t ed byhi s att orney ’ s s t at ementt o the D i s tr i ct C our tthatJ ai m es - L opez’ s gui l typl ea i s “i n no w aycondi t i onal upon anythi ng the G o v e rn m e n t is g o in g to d o .” 2 E v e n a ss u m in g th e im m ig ra tio n a g e n t h a d a u th o rityto b in d th e g o v e rn m e n t, defe ndant ’ s ar gum ent s w oul d s t i l l fai l
. ForJ ai m es - L opez t o pr evai l , the i m m i gr at i on 3 agent s ’ att empt s t o i nduce hi s cooper at i on m us tcons t i tut e a pr om i s e thatthe governm ent
w oul d fi l e a mot i on fordow nw ar d departur e. U nderthe cl earerr ors t andar d, w e gi ve d e f e re n c e to th e D istric t C o u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s s o lo n g a s th e re is s u f f icie n t ev id e n c e in the r ecor d t o s uppor tthos e fi ndi ngs . A tJ ai m es - L opez’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s tr i ct C our tfound the i m m i gr at i on agent s ’ col l oquyw i th J ai m es - L opez w as partof “the norm al gi ve and t ake” thatoccur s pr i ort o form al di s cus s i ons w i th the A U SA
. W e s ee no e rr or her e.W e a lso a g re e w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t, ev e n if it h a d m a d e a b in d in g p ro m ise to 4 Jai m es- L op ez, his refusal t o g i ve ad dit i on al i nfo rm at i on atthe p rosecut or’ s r equ est nul l i fi ed the governm ent ’ s obl i gat i ons underthatpr om i s e. 6 J ai m es - L opez r el i es on t w o of the i m m i gr at i on agent s ’ s t at ement s : fi r s t , “do y ou
w antt o go hom e ordo y ou w antt o go t o j ai l ?”, as ked i n r es pons e t o the fa l s e i nform at i on h e a d m itt e d lysu p p lied to th e a g e n ts, a n d se c o n d , “c ’m o n , let’s g o , this is g o in g to h e lp y o u a lo t.” B u t at n o p o in t d id a n ya g e n t m a k e a p ro m ise o n h is s e n ten c e o r p ro m ise to
re c o m m e n d a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re . N o r w a s th e re e v e n a p a ss in g re f e re n c e to “dow nw ar d departur e, ” “r ecomm endat i on, ” “pl ea a gr eement , ” or“5k1. 1. ” A tbes t , the
a g e n ts’ re m a rk s w e re a m b ig u o u s. W e se e n o e rro r h e re . O n re v iew , w e a re n o t “le f t w ith a def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thata mi s t ake ha s been c om m i t t ed, ” I g b o n wa , 120 F. 3d 4 3 7 , 4 4 0 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). 4 B eca us e no pr om i s e had be en made, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n notfi ndi ng a du e process vi olat i on . “A prosecutor ’s dis cret i on t o fil e [a § 5k 1. 1 m oti on ] [i s] al m ost unfett er ed. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. I

s aac , 141 F. 3d 477, 481 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( ci t i ng W ade v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 0 4 U .S . 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 -8 6 (1 9 9 2 )). A lth o u g h th is d isc re tio n “ is s u b jec t to
cons t i tut i onal l i m i t at i ons thatdi s tr i ctcourt s can e nfor ce, ” W ade , 50 4 U
. S
. at18 5, tho se li m it ati o n s d o n o t enc o m p ass th e f u ll ran g e o f b ad -fa ith co n d u ct. R athe r, a D istri ct C o u rt
m us tgr anta r emedyonl yi f the governm ent ’ s r efus al “w as bas ed on an uncons t i t ut i onal
m ot i ve , ” s uch as “the def endant ’ s r ace orr el i gi on. ” Id
. a t 5 3 1 ; acco rd I s aac , 141 F. 3d atJ ai m es - L opez c ont ends thatw e deve l oped a “ bad fa i th orr at i onal i ty ” t es ti n I s aac , 5 141 F. 3d at481- 83, “i f a pr os ecut orr enege d on a coope r at i on aft era pl ea a gr eementhad b e e n n e g o tiate d .” B u t I s aac and the ca s es on w hi ch i tr el i ed foc us ed on w r i t t en pl ea agr eement s , abs enther e, w hi ch l entthemsel ves t o i nt erpr et at i on underthe bas i c contr act pr i nci pl es i nform i ng “bad f ai th. ” R egar dl es s , no pr om i s e w as m ade he r e. I n cl ai m i ng the governm ent ’ s conductvi ol at ed due pr oces s , J ai m es - L opez a r gues 6 conce pt s of “f

undament al fai r nes s ” ar e atpl ay . B utthi s appl i es onl yt o conduct i m pl i cat i ng uncons t i tut i onal di s cr i m i nat i on, abs enther e. 7 481. B eca us e no uncons t i tut i onal m ot i ve i s appar enti n thi s cas e, and bec aus e none ha s 5 been argued byJai m es- L op ez, the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err i n n ot fi nd i ng a du e process 6 vi ol at i on. III . W e w i l l aff

i r m j udgm entof s ent ence .