United States v. Arqueta-Ramos

Decision Date20 September 2013
Docket NumberNo. 10–10618.,10–10618.
Citation730 F.3d 1133
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Delcia ARQUETA–RAMOS, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Saul M. Huerta, The Huerta Law Office, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for DefendantAppellant.

Wilbert L. Rocker, Jr. (argued), Special Assistant United States Attorney, John S. Leonardo, United States Attorney, and Christina M. Cabanillas, Appellate Chief, Tucson, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:10–cr–00056–RCC–1.

Before: FERDINAND F. FERNANDEZ, RICHARD A. PAEZ, and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Delcia Arqueta–Ramos appeals her conviction for illegally entering the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). She pled guilty to this offense during an “Operation Streamline” proceeding, which is ‘a procedure for the taking of pleas en masse.’ United States v. Escamilla–Rojas, 640 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir.2011), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 101, 184 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) (quoting United States v. Roblero–Solis, 588 F.3d 692, 693 (9th Cir.2009)).

On appeal, Arqueta–Ramos argues that the plea proceeding violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1), which requires the court to “address the defendant personally in open court.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1). Under Rule 11, the court must both “inform the defendant of” her pre-trial and trial rights “and determine that the defendant understands” those rights. Id. at (A)-(N). We conclude that, although the court did not err by advising the defendants of their rights en masse, it erred by not questioning Arqueta–Ramos individually to ensure that she understood her rights. See Escamilla–Rojas, 640 F.3d at 1060.

We further conclude that the government has not carried its burden of proving “that [Arqueta–Ramos] would have pleaded guilty even without the Rule 11 error.” Id. at 1061;see alsoFed.R.Crim.P. 11(h). We therefore vacate Arqueta–Ramos's conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 29, 2009, the government charged Arqueta–Ramos with illegally entering the United States, a misdemeanor. See8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). She pled guilty to this offense during an “Operation Streamline” group plea proceeding that same day. Operation Streamline is a program established by the United States Department of Justice that “requires criminal prosecution and imprisonment of all individuals unlawfully crossing the border.” In re Approval of Judicial Emergency Declared in Dist. of Ariz., 639 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir.2011). The program has “eliminated the discretion traditionally reserved by United States Attorney's offices,” resulting in “a burgeoning number of federal criminal prosecutions in all districts bordering Mexico,” especially the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Id.

“To accommodate the enormous number of prosecutions” that must take place under Operation Streamline, the District of Arizona “has adopted a procedure for the taking of pleas en masse intended to preserve the rudiments of [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 11 and the [C]onstitution.” Roblero–Solis, 588 F.3d at 693.1 As we have previously explained,

In Operation Streamline proceedings, a magistrate judge is assigned to preside over a group hearing of fifty to seventy defendants charged with petty misdemeanorviolations of illegal entry. The hearing combines the defendants' initial appearances, guilty pleas, and sentencing hearings into one proceeding.

United States v. Aguilar–Vera, 698 F.3d 1196, 1198 (9th Cir.2012) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted); see also Roblero–Solis, 588 F.3d at 694.

At this particular hearing, the magistrate judge took a roll call of sixty-six defendants, including Arqueta–Ramos, who were present “for initial appearance, possible change of plea and sentencing.” 2 Transcript of Proceedings, Initial Appearance, Change of Plea and Sentencing, United States v. Arqueta–Ramos, No. 09–37497MP (D.Ariz. Dec. 29, 2009), ECF No. 14.3 The defendants were represented by fifteen different lawyers, each of whom represented between three and five defendants. During the roll call, Arqueta–Ramos requested a hearing outside of the en masse proceeding on the ground that the proceeding did not comply with Rule 11. The judge denied the request.

The judge then collectively addressed the group of sixty-three defendants. 4 She asked them to “please stand” if they were “having trouble hearing through [their] headphones.” No one stood. The judge then explained,

I'm going to start by addressing all of you as a group, and then I will call you and your attorneys up five at a time to speak to you more individually about your case.

If at any time during this proceeding you don't understand, and would like your attorney to approach and speak with you, please stand up, and let me know right away, I'll stop the proceedings and have you consult with your attorney.

The judge then advised the defendants of their pre-trial and trial rights. First, the judge informed the defendants that they had the right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney if they could not afford their own. She then stated that each defendant had been given an attorney before the hearing and asked the defendants to “please stand” if they were not given sufficient time to meet with their attorneys. No defendant stood. Second, the judge informed the defendants that they had a right to remain silent, but would give up that right if they pled guilty. She asked “anyone [who] does not understand this right [to] please stand”; no one stood. Third, the judge informed the defendants that [t]he maximum penalties for illegal entry are six months in prison and a fine of $5,000.” Fourth, the judge informed the defendants that if they pled guilty they would have a criminal conviction on their records. She further explained that, after serving their sentences, the defendants would be deported, not just voluntarily returned, to their native countries, and that, if they illegally re-entered the United States again, they could be charged with a felony and serve years in prison. Fifth, the judge explained that the defendants who had entered into written plea agreements were waiving their right to appeal, and the defendants who had not signed such agreements would have fourteen days to file a notice of appeal. The judge then explained what rights the defendants would have if they decided to proceed to trial.

After informing the defendants of their rights, the judge said “I'm now going to call those of you that do not have plea agreements up in groups of five with your attorney, and ask you more specific questions.” 5 The judge called ten such groups; Arqueta–Ramos was in the eighth group called, along with four other defendants. The following exchange took place among the judge, the defendants, and the attorneys:

Court: Counsel, do each of you believe that your clients are competent to plead and are pleading voluntarily?

All answer yes.

Court: Do each of you believe that your clients understand the penalties they're facing and the rights they're giving up?

All answer yes.

Court: Do any of the defendants feel threatened or forced to plead guilty?

Interpreter: All answer no.

Court: Do each of you understand the maximum penalties?

Interpreter: All answer yes.

Court: Do each of you understand your right to a court trial?

Interpreter: All answer yes.

Court: Do each of you wish to waive this right and plead guilty?

Interpreter: All answer yes.

Court: Do each of you understand your right to appeal?

Interpreter: All answer yes.

Court: Are any of you citizens of the United States?

Interpreter: All answer no.

Court: Did each of you enter the United States during the last seven days?

Interpreter: All answer yes.

Court: Did each of you enter near the cities of Nogales, Sasabe or Douglas?

Interpreter: All answer yes.

Court: Did each of you—did any of you enter at a designated port of entry in one of these cities?

Interpreter: All answer no.

Court: Did any of you have legal authorization to be in the United States?

Interpreter: All answer no.

...

Court: Miss Arqueta–Ramos, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty?

Defendant: Guilty.

Immediately after this colloquy, Arqueta–Ramos renewed her objection that the proceeding violated Rule 11. Her attorney argued that Rule 11 requires that the [c]ourt address individuals personally,” explaining that the objection was “not to what the [c]ourt said specifically,” but rather “to the process as a whole,” which “does not allow for individuals to be seen personally by the [c]ourt.” The judge rejected Arqueta–Ramos's argument, entered a judgment of conviction, and sentenced her to time served. According to the government, Arqueta–Ramos was removed from the United States that same day.

Arqueta–Ramos appealed to the district court, which rejected her Rule 11 argument and affirmed her conviction. See18 U.S.C. 3402. Arqueta–Ramos timely appealed the district court's judgment of conviction.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The Court reviews de novo a district court's decision regarding questions of law, including the sufficiency of a Rule 11 plea colloquy.” Aguilar–Vera, 698 F.3d at 1200. Where, as here, the defendant raised her objections during the plea proceeding, the court reviews for harmless error. Id.

III. ANALYSIS
A.

We must decide if the district court complied with its Rule 11 duty to “address the defendant personally in open court,” which includes both informing the defendant of her rights and determining that she understands those rights. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1).6 In deciding this issue, we do not write on a blank slate. We have several times before held that certain aspects of [Operation Streamline] violate ... Rule 11,” and we follow those...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • United States v. Gallegos-Aparicio
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 13 Agosto 2020
    ...involved numerous § 1325 defendants appearing together, a practice we have previously approved."); see also United States v. Arqueta-Ramos, 730 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that "the court did not err by advising the defendants of their rights en masse . . ."). Defendants' above-......
  • United States v. Herrera-Chiang
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 18 Agosto 2015
    ...On this record, "'it is impossible to know . . . what [Herrera] would have done,' absent the Rule 11 error." United States v. Arqueta-Ramos, 730 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Kennell, 15 F.3d 134, 136-37 (9th Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, Herrera has not met his burd......
1 books & journal articles
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...government needs to establish beyond reasonable doubt that defendant knew that he was illegally present); U.S. v. Arqueta-Ramos, 730 F.3d 1133, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to individually address defendant during group plea not harmless error because no evidence defendant would have pl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT