Opinion ID: 747578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Appellant Martinez

Text: 154 Martinez contends that he is entitled to a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence in exchange for his cooperation in locating certain fugitives. Specifically, Martinez claims that the government promised him a reduction of his 336 month sentence in this case to sixty months. This sentence, according to appellant, would run concurrently with any sentence he received were he to be found guilty in an unrelated criminal case proceeding before District Judge Hoeveler. Martinez claims that that sentence was to be for no more than sixty months as well. The facts upon which he predicates his claims are quite involved and are detailed thoroughly in the briefs submitted by both appellant and the government. Thus, they will be summarized and repeated here only as necessary for understanding and resolution of Martinez's claim. 155 In July 1990, after his conviction in this case, but before he was sentenced, Martinez was indicted in another case which was assigned to Judge Hoeveler. Appellant apparently made it known that he was interested in cooperating with the government in hopes of reducing his sentence, but was informed through his attorney that AUSA Kaiser, assigned to prosecute the present case, was not interested. Thereafter, on December 7, 1990, he was sentenced by Judge King in the present case to 336 months, that is twenty-eight years, imprisonment. While in a holding cell after his sentencing, Martinez told Hector Valdez, a confidential informant of Deputy United States Marshal Thomas Figmik, that he wanted to cooperate with the Marshal Service in its efforts to apprehend fugitives. He did this at Valdez's encouragement. Thus began a series of contacts between Figmik and Martinez that Martinez claims resulted in the promise of a sentence reduction described above in exchange for information that ultimately led to the capture of a dangerous fugitive. 156 Early on, Martinez's attorney found out about the meetings and demanded that they cease. He was assured by AUSA Mullaney, the prosecutor of the second criminal case proceeding before Judge Hoeveler, that they would. Appellant was transferred from Miami to a federal correctional institution for six months. He claims that during this time he was in contact with Valdez, but not Figmik or any other government agent. Martinez was returned to Miami where he claims he was contacted by Valdez who was seeking information about a specific fugitive for Figmik who really wanted to capture this particular fugitive. Martinez had such information and Valdez relayed this to Figmik. Figmik sought and received permission from Mullaney to meet with Martinez despite Mullaney's earlier assurances to appellant's attorney. Martinez told Figmik that before he provided the information, he wanted Figmik to make his cooperation known to both AUSAs Kaiser and Mullaney as well as Martinez's attorney. At this point, Martinez claims that Figmik told him that he would do so, but that his attorney was too hard to work with and suggested appellant retain attorney Lenny Baer, who was Hector Valdez's attorney. Figmik called Baer and had Baer contact appellant. No deals were apparently made at this meeting and Baer never became Martinez's attorney. On August 23, 1991, Martinez was again transported to Figmik's office. Figmik told Martinez that the meeting had been authorized by Mullaney, which Mullaney does not deny. It was at this point that appellant claims he made the specific sentence reduction demand in return for the information on the fugitive. According to Martinez, Figmik called Mullaney and then told appellant that Mullaney had approved the deal. Figmik and Mullaney admit that they spoke by telephone, but vigorously deny that any deal was offered or authorized. Based on this claimed representation, Martinez says that he provided the information. Nothing relating to this alleged deal, however, was ever reduced to writing. It is clear that the information that Martinez provided led to the capture of the fugitive. 157 Again in October of 1991, Martinez's attorney found out about the meetings and contacted Mullaney to demand that they stop. Mullaney contacted Figmik's supervisor at the Marshal Service to advise him that Figmik was to have no further contact with appellant. Despite this, on November 8, 1991, Figmik had Martinez brought to the Marshal's cellblock to be debriefed further. Figmik claimed he had forgotten that he was not to have any further contact with appellant, but remembered after appellant was brought there and decided not to meet with him. Martinez claims that Valdez was brought to the same holding cell and was used to relay information between the two. Records show that Valdez had been transported to the cellblock the same day. Figmik denies that Valdez was used in this way and claims it was purely coincidental that they were there on the same day and placed in the same holding cell. Martinez claims that he was assured that he would get his deal, but must not tell his attorney. Figmik denies that Martinez ever asked for anything specific in return for the information beyond notifying both prosecutors of his cooperation which Figmik says he did. 158 When no Rule 35(b) motion was filed by the government, Martinez filed his motion for reduction or alternative motion to compel the government to do so. A two-day hearing on that motion was held before Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff. See Supp.R. 2-1-621. In his thorough Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge found that both Martinez and his attorney had been advised by the U.S. Attorney's Office that no deals would be made with appellant. He further found, and appellant conceded, that Figmik had not been authorized by the U.S. Attorney's Office to make such a deal and that no writing memorializing the alleged deal existed. The only promise the magistrate judge found to have been made was that Figmik would bring Martinez's cooperation to the attention of the prosecutors. Thus, he found no enforceable agreement to reduce appellant's sentence. In reaching his decision, the magistrate judge relied on our opinion in United States v. Kettering, 861 F.2d 675 (11th Cir.1988) which essentially held that the government could only be bound by promises made by an agent authorized to make such promises and upon which a defendant detrimentally relies. Again, the magistrate judge not only determined that Figmik had made no promises other than to bring the cooperation to the attention of the AUSA, but further found that even if he did, he was not authorized to, and that because Martinez had already been convicted and sentenced by Judge King in the present case, he could show no detrimental reliance on any promise made. Finally, the magistrate judge noted that he found the contact between Figmik and appellant without appellant's counsel present disquieting even though the contact was unrelated to any pending prosecution in which appellant was involved. That determination, however, he found immaterial to the issue before him. 159 Martinez filed objections to the Report and Recommendation stating that crucial facts were omitted, the Report was contrary to the evidence, the magistrate judge's credibility findings were contrary to the evidence, and his application of Kettering was incorrect. After hearing oral argument, considering the extensive briefs filed by both Martinez and the government, and conducting an independent review of the record, Judge King affirmed the Report and Recommendation and denied appellant's motion. It is from this denial that Martinez appealed. 160 On appeal, appellant argues in his principal and reply brief that this Court should order the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion because of the negligence and chicanery in which the government engaged. In its brief, the government interpreted appellant's claim as one for specific performance of the alleged twenty-three year reduction in appellant's sentence and proceeded to spend much of its brief arguing that the lower courts' factual determinations that there was no deal and credibility determinations were not clearly erroneous and that, in any event, based on Kettering, anything promised by Figmik without the authorization of the U.S. Attorney's Office was unenforceable. In his reply brief, Martinez states that the government misinterprets his position:Appellant's position is not that the government specifically perform by recommending that Appellant receive a five year sentence. Instead, Appellant's position is that the government be ordered to file a Motion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 due to the fact that the government [systematically] eliminated defense counsel from meetings between the Marshal and Appellant despite a promise from the prosecutor that no such ex parte contacts would occur. 161 Appellant's Reply Brief at 2. Martinez goes on to argue that the Government's ex parte contact with the Appellant prejudiced this represented defendant by precluding him from being able to appropriately negotiate for a sentence reduction based on his uncounseled cooperation. Id. at 6. Appellant bases his argument on the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Treleaven, 35 F.3d 458 (9th Cir.1994). Therein, the Ninth Circuit held that improper ex parte contacts with a represented defendant required vacating his sentence and remanding to the district court for determination of whether a downward departure was warranted despite the fact that the government had filed no motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. At his plea proceedings, the defendant had made an unequivocal offer through defense counsel to testify against a co-defendant in return for a downward departure. That offer was refused. The government, thereafter, contacted the defendant without notifying his attorney and secured his testimony against the co-defendant. The Ninth Circuit found that the defendant testified apparently assuming that his lawyer had reached the prosecutor and that the government would move for the downward departure mentioned in the plea proceedings. Id. at 460. In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that no cases have squarely addressed the situation. Id. at 462. We note that no courts have followed the decision. 162 Following the filing of its brief in which it steadfastly denied appellant's entitlement to a Rule 35(b) motion, and for reasons it has failed to explain, the government filed such a motion. In the motion, the government stated that it considered appellant's cooperation and assistance substantial and recommended that appellant's sentence be reduced by three years, that is to twenty-five years. Thereafter, the government filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as moot and remove it from our argument calendar in as much as Martinez had received the exact relief he was requesting: a Rule 35(b) motion. We denied that motion. At oral arguments, however, we raised the question to appellant's counsel of whether the government was correct in arguing that appellant's claims were remedied by the filing of the motion. Counsel argued there, and in appellant's supplemental brief filed after oral arguments, that it clearly was not because Martinez was now in a worse position than before the government filed the motion. Appellant argues that the thrust of his claim has always been that the government's systematic exclusion of counsel from cooperation negotiations deprived him of the opportunity to negotiate an enforceable reduction in his sentence that reflected the true magnitude of his client's assistance. 163 There is no question but that the Defendant and counsel would have negotiated a far more positive arrangement than a Rule 35 with a three (3) year recommendation had counsel not been excluded in the first place. Appellant should not be forced to appear before the District Court at a Rule 35 hearing handicapped by a deficient post hac Motion he would not have had to contend with or explain had counsel not been improperly excluded ab initio. 164 Appellant's Supplemental Memorandum of Law at 1-2. As a result, Martinez proposes two remedies: 1) Remand with instructions that appellant is entitled to a Rule 35(b) reduction and direct the district court to conduct a hearing to determine the amount of reduction counsel would have been able to secure had he not been excluded; or 2) Order the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion without limitation because [p]lainly such a motion is the least counsel could have obtained for Appellant had counsel not been unconstitutionally excluded from the cooperation process. This, we believe, accurately summarizes the parties' positions as they currently stand. 165 First, although Martinez apparently is no longer basing his claim on this argument, for the sake of clarity and comprehensiveness we have carefully reviewed his claim that he was promised a twenty-three year reduction in his twenty-eight year sentence as well as the magistrate and district judges' findings that no such promise was made. After careful consideration, we are not prepared to say that the district judge's factual determination that no specific promise of a sentence reduction existed was clearly erroneous. See Kettering, 861 F.2d at 677. In conducting such a review, we are cognizant of the advantages possessed by the trial court in appraising the significance of conflicting testimony and that an appellant court should be especially reluctant to disregard a district court's credibility choices. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In the end, the determination of what exactly went on at these meetings must necessarily come down to the credibility of the persons offering the conflicting accounts. Martinez's contention that he was able to negotiate a twenty-three year reduction in his sentence in this case when the AUSA in charge had unequivocally stated his lack of interest in dealing with him in any way is palpably unbelievable. While we confess our own distress, as did the magistrate judge below, with the actions and explanations of the government, especially those of Marshal Figmik, in this matter, there is simply no basis to say that the district judge's findings that the government's version of the events and promises made was correct were clearly erroneous. Thus, the determination that the only promise made to Martinez by the government was to inform both prosecutors of appellant's cooperation stands. 166 We next turn to what Martinez characterizes as his central proposition: Had the government not breached its December 1990 promise to stop all contact with Appellant, counsel would have been in a position to attempt to negotiate an agreement with both the prosecutor in the King and the Hoeveler cases. Appellant's Reply Brief at 4. We find that Martinez received the exact relief, albeit late, that he was seeking from this Court and, thus, we need not determine whether he would have been entitled to a reduction if the government had not filed for one. In his principal brief, appellant plainly stated: 167 In sum, because the prosecutor promised defense counsel he would stop all meetings but later authorized meetings which lead to the disclosure of critical information, the Government is duty bound to file a Motion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b), in this case. 168 Appellant's Brief at 22. That is exactly what Martinez got. 169 That leaves only the issue of whether the government should be prohibited from making a recommendation as to the amount of reduction Martinez should receive. Assuming for the moment, without of course deciding the issue, that appellant would have been entitled to a reduction even if the government had not filed for one, we see no reason why the government should be prohibited from making its recommendation. Nowhere in his principal or reply brief did Martinez take the position that the government should not have been able to recommend what it believed to be an appropriate reduction. Counsel's argument in the supplemental brief that trial counsel would have been able to secure a greater reduction than that recommended by the government had he been present, and therefore the government's recommendation should not be heard, is at best speculative. There is no basis to believe that Martinez would have received more than a three year reduction in his sentence in this case when, as we have already stated, AUSA Kaiser, who was in charge of this prosecution, was in no way interested in dealing with him. What appellant might have been able to negotiate with AUSA Mullaney regarding the prosecution proceeding before Judge Hoeveler is of no consequence. Further, as a practical matter, appellant's proposed remedy of instructing the district judge to conduct a hearing to determine what counsel would have been able to negotiate is simply unworkable. We cannot conceive, and Martinez has not suggested, how the district judge could determine this beyond merely guessing, something we are not prepared to require him to do. 170 We have found no misconduct on the part of the government prosecutors in this case and thus find no basis to ask the government to stand silent regarding what reduction it believes that Martinez is entitled to based upon the level of his cooperation. The government stated in its motion that it considered Martinez's cooperation substantial and appellant remains free to argue to the district judge that the magnitude of his assistance in capturing the notorious fugitive entitles him to a greater reduction than what the government recommends.