Opinion ID: 3190891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Post-Sentencing Arguments

Text: In the July 16, 2013, so-called nunc pro tunc motion, Martínez-Hernández raised three new sets of arguments: (1) he claimed that Torres's actions may have violated the lifetime no contact rule of 18 U.S.C. [§] 207(a)(1); (2) he argued that Torres had worked with a cooperating witness in Martínez-Hernández's case when she was an AUSA, and that Torres's supposed conflict prevented her from pursuing a legitimate Motion to Dismiss the Indictments; and (3) he suggested that Torres and/or the government failed to follow DOJ procedures on conflict of interest cases by not requesting an opinion from an Ethics Official, and that the district court should dismiss the indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct. Other than captioning it Nunc Pro Trunc [sic], Martínez-Hernández did not ground this motion in any given procedure or established law. The district court rejected these arguments on the merits in its May 6, 2014, Opinion and Order. First, to the extent Martínez-Hernández was arguing that a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) illustrates Torres's alleged conflict of interest, and so is part of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the argument. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e). And to the extent - 20 - Martínez-Hernández was urging the district court to find that Torres violated the statute, his contention is off the mark. Section 207 is a criminal provision whose violation must be preceded by formal charges brought by the government. The record does not reflect that Torres was ever so charged. Second, to the extent Martínez-Hernández was seeking to withdraw his guilty plea based on his new arguments about Torres's alleged conflict, at that point, he could not seek to do so before the district court except through collateral attack. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e). Again, Martínez-Hernández makes no argument that his motions were raised pursuant to § 2255, so the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear them. Third, and finally, to the extent Martínez-Hernández in his nunc pro tunc motion was seeking to dismiss his earlier indictments because of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, this argument is not developed on appeal and so is waived, United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990), whether or not the district court could entertain the merits. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we have jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions and orders of the district courts within this circuit. Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 142 (1st Cir. 2007). However, it normally is incumbent upon an appellate court to satisfy itself both of its own subject-matter jurisdiction and of the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial - 21 - court before proceeding further. Id. And if the record discloses that the lower court was without jurisdiction this court will notice the defect . . . . Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986) (quoting United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440 (1936)). It is true that the government did not question the district court's jurisdiction to rule on the nunc pro tunc motion and replied on the merits. But the government's failure to notice the issues of untimeliness and lack of authority did not vest the district court with authority to hear the motion. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002); Irving v. United States, 162 F.3d 154, 160–61 (1st Cir. 1998) (en banc).