United States v. Miranda-Martinez
Decision Date | 24 June 2015 |
Docket Number | 14–1244.,Nos. 14–1149,s. 14–1149 |
Citation | 790 F.3d 270 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Santos J. MIRANDA–MARTINEZ, a/k/a Santitos, a/k/a Chiquitin, Defendant, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Raymond E. Gillespie on brief for appellant.
Rosa Emilia Rodríguez–Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson Pérez–Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and Francisco A. Besosa–Martínez, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Before KAYATTA, SELYA, and BARRON, Circuit Judges.
Santos J. Miranda–Martinez (“Miranda”) appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to drug trafficking crimes. He argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the government breached the terms of his plea agreement, and because the district court erroneously imposed a two-level firearm enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Finding neither argument persuasive, we affirm.
Miranda was indicted in 2011 in the District of Puerto Rico for conspiring to import cocaine into the United States (count one) and conspiring to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute (count two). In 2012, a second indictment charged that, with respect to a different conspiracy, Miranda conspired to possess heroin, cocaine, and marijuana with the intent to distribute (count one); aided and abetted the distribution of those controlled substances (counts two through four); and conspired to possess firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (count five). At Miranda's request, the two cases were consolidated for his change of plea hearing and sentencing. Miranda pled guilty to count one in both indictments pursuant to a plea agreement with the government.
The district court sentenced Miranda to 293 months' imprisonment for count one in each of the two cases, with the terms to be served concurrently, and dismissed the remaining counts in both indictments. The district court calculated the guidelines range using a total offense level above that recommended by the parties in the plea agreement, and also imposed a firearm enhancement not contemplated in the agreement, thereby permitting Miranda to appeal his sentence notwithstanding the plea agreement's waiver of appeal clause.1 See United States v. Fernández–Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48, 51 (1st Cir.2010).
Miranda first argues that the government violated the plea agreement when one of the prosecutors stated facts known to the government relating to his possession of firearms during the time period alleged in the second indictment. Because Miranda did not make this argument in the district court, we review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 133–34, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). While Puckett stated that plain error review applies “in the usual fashion” to forfeited arguments that the government breached a plea agreement, id. at 134, 129 S.Ct. 1423, the Supreme Court also observed in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 263, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), that the fault with respect to the government's failure to uphold its end of a plea agreement “rests on the prosecutor, not on the sentencing judge.” And we have ourselves said the same. United States v. Riggs, 287 F.3d 221, 225 (1st Cir.2002) (). In any event, for the following reasons, we find that the prosecutor's comments at Miranda's sentencing hearing likely did not violate the plea agreement, and therefore could not have constituted plain error.
The plea agreement stipulated that Miranda's base offense level should be thirty-six due to the amount and type of controlled substances involved in the conspiracies, and that a downward variance of three levels should apply due to his acceptance of responsibility. The plea agreement also stipulated that the parties “agree that no further adjustments or departures to the defendant's base offense level shall be sought,” and it obligated each party to recommend a sentence within the guidelines range corresponding to the agreed-upon total offense level of thirty-three. That recommendation did not bind the district court, even once it accepted the guilty plea. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(B). Rather, the agreement specified that Miranda understood “that the sentence will be left entirely to the sound discretion of the [district court] in accordance with the advisory Sentencing Guidelines.”
The presentence investigation report (“PSR”) conveyed that a Drug Enforcement Administration agent learned that Puerto Rico police seized a semi-automatic handgun from Miranda in 2007, that they seized guns from his co-conspirators, and that another one of his co-conspirators carried a gun throughout the period of time covered by the conspiracy in the second indictment. As we explain in more detail below, those facts, if accepted by the district court, called for a two-level enhancement in the guidelines sentencing calculations. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Miranda objected to the PSR's reliance on such an enhancement. In addressing that objection at the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the district court observed of its own account that the PSR recited that Counsel then argued the point. He asserted that Miranda himself had no gun; but conceded that “[i]n this case, every single defendant [other than Miranda] ..., they did possess firearms,” and that another defendant who accompanied Miranda to a meeting had a firearm. Counsel also argued that the connection between this case and the alleged 2007 seizure of a gun from Miranda himself was unclear, even if the seizure occurred.
When Miranda's counsel finished his argument, the following colloquy ensued:
In thereafter sentencing Miranda, the district court included the two-level enhancement in its guidelines calculations, explaining its reasoning as follows:
As it was foreseeable that dangerous weapons, including firearms, would be possessed during the drug trafficking conspiracy, a two-level increase is warranted.... As you notice, Counsel, if it was foreseeable that firearms would be possessed.
Miranda now argues on appeal that Assistant U.S. Attorney Castellón's statements breached the government's promise not to seek any upward enhancements.
The applicable law bearing on the prosecutor's conduct seeks to balance competing aims. On the one hand, several opinions of this court expressly provide that “[t]he government's review of the facts of the case ... cannot constitute a breach of the plea agreement [when] they [are] relevant to the court's imposition of sentence; no limitation can be placed, by agreement or otherwise, on this information.” United States v. Gonczy, 357 F.3d 50, 53 (1st Cir.2004) ; see also United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.2000) ( ); United States v. Hogan, 862 F.2d 386, 389 (1st Cir.1988) ( ). Thus, “[t]he mere furnishing” of facts concerning the background, character, and conduct of the defendant “gives us little pause.” Saxena, 229 F.3d at 6.
On the other hand, we have acknowledged that certain factual “omission [s], helpful to the defendant,” may be “an implicit part of the bargain” in a plea agreement. United States v. Yeje–Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1, 28 (1st Cir.2005). In Gonczy, for example, we held that a prosecutor breached a plea agreement when he began a sentencing argument by recommending a sentence according...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Hinds v. Lynch
-
United States v. Reyes-Santiago
...sentencing determinations.” United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2000) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Miranda–Martinez, 790 F.3d 270, 275 (1st Cir.2015) (referencing the “equilibrium [that must be] struck by these competing tugs”). In this case, however, we need no......
-
Newton v. United States
...the U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement to Petitioner based on the foreseeable acts of his co-conspirators. See United States v. Miranda-Martinez, 790 F.3d 270, 276 (1st Cir. 2015). Because an objection to the firearms guideline enhancement lacked merit, counsel's performance was not deficien......
-
United States v. Ubiles-Rosario
...the "solemn obligation to provide relevant information to the sentencing court." Id. at 90 ; see also United States v. Miranda-Martinez , 790 F.3d 270, 274 (1st Cir. 2015). This court has recognized that these twin obligations can sometimes "pull in different directions." United States v. C......