United States v. Arevalo
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25957
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- Manuel Vigil pled guilty to conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering and use of a firearm in a crime of violence under a plea agreement with an appeal waiver cap of 195 months or below.
- Plea allocution was conducted with a Spanish interpreter for the plea proceedings, and Vigil acknowledged the waiver of appeal rights.
- Presentence report initially calculated a 240-month Guidelines range, but the government and Vigil later agreed the proper range was 157–181 months due to disputed facts.
- At sentencing, the beginning proceeded without a Spanish interpreter; the Court paused, later provided an interpreter, and sentenced Vigil to 157 months.
- The presentence report did not include Rule 32(i)(3)(B) and (C) determinations or append such determinations to the PSR, as required by Rule 32; Vigil appealed pro se and new counsel challenged the deficiencies.
- The government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver; the district court’s Rule 32 deficiencies and absence of an interpreter became central to the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vigil’s Rule 32(i)(3) error is foreclosed by the appeal waiver. | Vigil—Vigil argues waiver does not bar Rule 32 error. | Vigil—waiver should not bar Rule 32 error claims. | Waiver forecloses Rule 32(i)(3) error claim. |
| Whether the absence of a Spanish interpreter at the start of sentencing violated due process or required remand. | Vigil—absence compromised presence and understanding. | Waiver still governs; no due process violation shown. | Waiver precludes the interpreter-absence claim. |
| Whether the presentence report errors or disputed facts require remand for amended PSR. | Vigil sought remand for new/amended PSR. | Waiver forecloses remand for PSR purposes. | Waiver forecloses remand for PSR purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez-Perez v. United States, 215 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2000) (enforceability of knowing and voluntary appellate waivers in plea agreements)
- Petty v. United States, 80 F.3d 1384 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 32(i) error not barred by waiver in some contexts)
- Washington v. United States, 83 Fed.Appx. 110 (6th Cir. 2003) (unpublished decision applying waiver to Rule 32 errors)
- Kee v. United States, 29 F. App’x 625 (2d Cir. 2002) (remand for Rule 32(i)(3) error (unpublished))