# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d Jul y 7, 20 08 Deci ded J uly7, 20 08 B efo re R IC H A R D D . C U D A H Y , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 07- 2578 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v. J OS EP H J AI M E V AZQUEZ
- OR TE RO , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o f I l l i no i s, Ea st ern Di vi si o n. N o. 03
- CR
- 611 J o hn W . Da r r ah, Judg e . O R D E R Jos ep hV az qu ez -O te ro p lea d ed gu ilty to co n sp irin g t o s ell c oc ain e, see 2 1 U. S
. C. § § 8 4 6 , 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , a n d th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ts e n t e n c e d h i m t o 2 4 8 mo n th s ’ i mpr i s o n me n t . A s p ar t o f a w rit te np lea ag re em en t, V az q u ez -O te ro w aiv ed h is rig h t t o a p p ea l his se n te n c e. N onethel ess , Vazquez- Otero fi l ed a no ti ce o fappeal
. His appoint ed counselnow m ove s t o w ith d ra w be c au se h e c an n otd isc er na n on friv olo u s b as is for ap p ea l. Se eAnde rs v. C alif ornia , 3 86 U. S
. 7 38 ( 19 67 )
. We inv i te d Va zque z- Ote r o t o c o m m en t o n c o uns el ’ s m o ti o n, see C IR . R. 51(b) , wh i ch he has done. W e r evi ew the potenti ali ssues i denti fi ed by VazquezNONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 07
- 2578 Page 2

O te ro as w ell as th os e id en tifie d in c ou n se l’s fa c ially ad eq u at e b rie f. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc huh , 289 F.3d 968 , 973-74 (7th C ir. 2002). V az qu ez -O te ro an d h is c on fed er at es w er e d ea lin g s u b st an tia l am ou n ts of co c ain e. A s par t o fhi s pl ea agr eem ent, Vazquez- Otero st i pu l ate d that he was re sponsibl e foratl eas t 15 0 k ilog ra m s, w h ich trig ge re d a b as e o ffen se lev el of 3 8. See U .S.S.G . § 2D 1.1 (c )(1)
. Vazquez- Otero al so sti pu l ate d that he had thr ee— and onl y three

— cri m i nalhi sto rypoi nts ar i singfr o m a 1 98 8 co nv i ct i o n un der§ 8 41 ( a) ( 1)
. T ho se s ti pul at i o ns , a fte rf ac to r i ngi n a th re e-le ve l red u c tio nfor a c c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility , see U . S. S. G. § 3 E1. 1, would have yie ld ed an im p ris on m en t ra n ge of 18 8 t o 2 35 m on th s, s e ei d. c h
. 5 , p t . A. I n fact, how ever, Vazq ue z-O tero ha d tw o prior conv ictions un d er § 841(a)( 1), lea d in g th e p ro b at ion offic er to co n c lu d e th ath e w as a c ar ee r offe n d er , see U . S. S. G. § 4 B1. 1, and that he f aced a ra nge o f29 2 t o 365 m onths. Afte r Vazquez- Otero sa w the proba ti on o ffi ce r ’ s ca l cul at i o ns , he pe r so na l l y wro te the di st r i ctc o ur t cl ai m i ngtha t he l i ed ab o ut va r i o us matt er s dur i ngthe pl eac o l l o quya nd s ee k i ngt o wi th dr aw hi s g ui l typl ea . T he n, w ith th e a ss ist an c e o f a n ew law ye r (h is fou rt h ) V az q u ez -O te ro m ov ed to w ith d ra w h is g ui l typl ea, c l ai m i ngtha t i t was i nv o l unt ary . Va zque z- Ote r o a ss er te d tha t hi s pr ev i o us l awy erha d f ai l ed to e xpl ain the pl eaa g r ee m en t an d thr ea te ne d hi m wi thl i fe i m pr i so nm en t i fhe di d not pl ead gui l ty. And , he a sse rt ed, he was “di sor i ented” b y pr escr i pti on me d i c a t i o n s d u r i n gth e p l e a c o l l o qu y . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ts u mma r i l y d e n i e d h i s mo t i o n . A t sente nci ng the go vernm ent m ove d fo r a be l ow-r ange sente nce o n the basi s o fVazquezO te ro ’s c oo p er at ion, see U. S
. S
. G. § 5 K1. 1, a nd a s bo thpa r ti es ha d a g r ee d i n wr i ting, the cour t i m posed a pri son ter m at85 % o fthe l ow end o fthe ra nge, o r 248 m onths. I n hi s A nd ers bri ef, appel l ate co unsel( now the fi fth l aw yer ) fi rs t co nsi ders w hether V az q u ez -O rt er o m igh t a rg u e th atth e d ist ric t jud ge d id n otfu lly c om p ly w ith Fe d er al R u le ofCri m i nalPro cedure 11(b) befor e a ccepti ng hi s guil ty ple a. Counselpro perl y a dd re sse s th is p ot en tia l arg u m en t b ec au se V az q u ez -O rt er o w an ts h is gu ilty p lea se t a sid e. See U nited St at e s v. Knox, 287F.3d 66 7, 67 1 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). W e r eadi l y a gr ee w i th co unselthatany chal l enge to the pl ea col l oquy would be fri vol ous. The c ol l oquy was exte nsi ve, and the j ud ge com pli ed w i th al lbut tw o techni cal r equi r ement s o fRul e 11 : fi r st, the c o ur t f ai l ed to i nf o r m Va zque z- Or te r o tha t he ha d the r i g htt o c o un s e l, a nd , s e c o nd , th e co ur t di d no t ex pl i ci tly i nf o r m Va zque z- Or te r o tha t he had the r i ght t o ple ad not gui l ty . See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(b) ( 1) ( D), (b) ( 1) ( B). Neither om i ssi on, however, underm i ned Vazquez- Orter o’ s abi l i ty to und er sta nd hi s r i ghts orto entera voluntarygui l ty ple a. He obv i ousl y knew abo ut hi s r i ght t o counselbec ause a re ta in ed law ye r w as w ith h im d u rin g th e c olloq u y, se e U nite d States v. Lovett, 84 4 F . 2d 487,N o. 07
- 2578 Page 3

491- 92 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) , and since the ve rypurpose ofthe col l oquy was to ch a ng e hi s pl ea fro m n otgu ilty to gu ilty , he als o kn ew th atp lea d in g g u ilty w as op tio n al, s e eKnox, 28 7 F . 3d at67 0. C ou ns el nex t con side rs w he th er Va zq ue z-O rtero cou ld argu e tha t the district cou rt ab u se d its d isc re tio nby refu sin g t o leth im to w ith d ra w h is gu ilty p lea
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. C ha vers , 51 5 F . 3d 722, 72 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) . W hen a defe nd ant m ove s t o w i thdraw a ple a bef or e s entencing, the dist ri ct c ourtm ay al l ow him to do s o i fhe ha s a “f ai r and j ust re aso n. ” Id
. Vazq ue z-O rtero had the bur den ofdem onst ra ti ng a f ai r and j ust r eas on t o wi thd r a w h i s p l e a , a nd the s t a t e men t s h e ma de du r i ngh i s p l e a c o l l o qu y a r e a c c o r de d a presum pti on o fve ri ty. U nite d States v. B enne tt, 32 2 F . 3d 1094, 10 99 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. Beca use V azq ue z-O rtero re c eiv ed a th or ou gh R u le 1 1 c olloq u y, h e w ou ld fac e a n“u p h ill ba tt le” if h e w as to ch alle n ge th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s re fu sa l to le t h im w ith d ra w h is p lea
. Id. W e a gr ee w i th co unselthatan a rgum ent c hal l enging the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r efusalto all ow Vaz qu ez-O rtero to w ithd raw his guilty plea w ou ld be fri volous. V azq ue z-O rtero’s ass er ti ons about hi s l aw yer ’ s per f or m ance as w el las hi s a l l ega ti ons that he was dis or i ented by presc ri pti on drugs ar e di re ctl y r efuted by hi s o w n sworn st ate m ents du ring the pl ea co l l o quy . T he di st r i ctc o ur t en g ag ed Vaz que z- Or te r o i n a l en g thy i nqui r yr eg ar di ngthe knowing and vol untarynatur e o fhi s pl ea, and ask ed hi m di re ctl y whether he had di sc us se d the pl eaa g r ee m en t wi thhi s l awy er, whethe ra ny o ne ha d thr ea te ne d hi m , a nd w h et h er h e h ad ta ke nan y m ed ica tio nth atd ay . V az q u ez -O rt er o ga ve cle ar an sw er s t o a ll ofthes e quest i ons, and nothing in the re cor d reb uts the pre sum pti on o fve ri ty gr anted to h is s ta te m en ts . See U nited Sta tes v. W a lk er, 447 F.3d 999 , 1004-05 (7th Cir. 2006). Consequentl y, the othe r potenti alar gum ents fra m ed by counseland VazquezOrter o, al lo fwh i ch co ncer n sent enci ng, ar e nec ess ar i l y fri vol ous b ecause o fthe appeal w ai ver . A w ai vero fappeali s bind i ng i fi t was kno w i ng and vo l untary, and i fthe gui l ty p lea its elf w as kn ow in g a n d vo lu n ta ry , so to o w as th e w aiv er . N un ez v . U nited Sta tes , 49 5 F.3 d 54 4, 54 5-4 6 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); U nited S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 184 F.3d 666 , 668 (7th C ir. 1999); U nited Sta te v. W

egn er, 58 F .3d 28 0, 28 2 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ). A c c or d in gly , w e G R A N T co u n se l’s m ot ion to w ith d ra w an d D ISM ISS th e a p p ea l.