United States v. Mojica-Ramos

• Decision Date: 08 February 2022
• Docket Number: Criminal No. 20-374 (FAB)
• Citation: 585 F.Supp.3d 171
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Yavier MOJICA-RAMOS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

585 F.Supp.3d 171

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Yavier MOJICA-RAMOS, Defendant.

Criminal No. 20-374 (FAB)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed February 8, 2022

585 F.Supp.3d 172

David Thomas Henek, AUSA, Department of Justice United States Attorney's Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

OPINION AND ORDER

BESOSA, District Judge.

Before the Court is defendant Yavier Mojica-Ramos ("Mojica")’s motion to compel specific performance of the applicable plea agreement. (Docket No. 65.) For the reasons set forth below, Mojica's motion to compel is DENIED .

I. Background

The facts are not in dispute. On November 4, 2020, a grand jury charged Mojica with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(1) (count one), and

585 F.Supp.3d 173

for possessing a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(o) (count two). (Docket No. 1.) The United States and Mojica entered into a plea agreement on August 5, 2021. (Docket No. 40.)

A. The Plea Agreement

Mojica pled guilty to possession of a machine gun pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B). (Docket No. 42.) In exchange for his guilty plea, the United States agreed "to dismiss the remaining counts [sic ] of the Indictment" (i.e. the felon in possession of a firearm count). (Docket No. 40 at p. 7.)

The maximum penalty for count two is a term of ten years imprisonment, a fine not to exceed $250,000.00, and a supervised release term not to exceed three years. Id. at p. 4. The parties agreed, however, to request a sentence "within the applicable Guidelines range at a total offense level of 19 when combined with the criminal history category determined by the Court." Id. at p. 4. The United States Probation Office asserts that Mojica is subject to a "criminal history category of III." (Docket No. 56 at p. 13.) Based on this offense level and criminal history category, the "guideline imprisonment range is [from] 37 months to 46 months." Id. at p. 22.

Mojica recommends a "reasonable sentence that is not harsher than necessary." (Docket No. 63.) His sentencing memorandum does not, however, seek a specific term of imprisonment. Id. The United States requests that the Court "impose a sentence of 46 months, which would be the upper end of the applicable sentencing range." (Docket No. 55 at p. 1.) According to the United States, extractions from Mojica's cellular phone demonstrate that he "continue[s] to embrace firearms, narcotics, and violent behavior." Id. at p. 3. These extractions include 255 images of various firearms; rounds of ammunition; a substance resembling marijuana packaged inside bulk, individual, and air-sealed bags; United States currency inside a Ziplock bag; pills inside unmarked containers; electronic scales and other drug paraphernalia. (Docket No. 55, Ex. 1.) Law enforcement officers also recovered footage of Mojica "brandishing an assault-style rife by repeatedly pointing the barrel at the individual who is recording the video." (Docket No. 55 at p. 6.) The United States contends that Mojica "has an interest in, and likely participates in, other criminal behavior beyond the" possession of a machinegun. Id. at p. 6.

Mojica argues that the United States breached the plea agreement by disclosing the cellular phone extractions to the Court. (Docket No. 65.) According to Mojica, this submission constitutes a "substantive request for an upward variance." Id. at p. 2. Essentially, Mojica avers that the United States’ sentencing memo is a tacit violation of the plea agreement.

II. Legal Standard

Plea agreements are governed "by general principles of contract law." United States v. Frazier, 340 F.3d 5, 11 (1st Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation omitted); United States v. Goodman, 971 F.3d 16, 19-20 (1st Cir. 2020) ("A plea agreement is, after all, a contract under which both parties give and receive consideration") (citation and quotation omitted). Because defendants forego fundamental rights by pleading guilty, courts hold the United States to "the most meticulous standards of both promise and performance." United States v. Clark, 55 F.3d 9, 12 (1st Cir. 1995) (citation and quotation omitted); see Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d...