United States v. Arroyo-Blas
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6150
1st Cir.2015Background
- Arroyo-Blas pled guilty under a written Rule 11(c)(1)(C) ("C-type") plea agreement to a drug-conspiracy count, admitting leadership and acceptance of responsibility for 50–150 kg of cocaine.
- The parties calculated Guidelines and agreed to a binding C-type sentence range of 180–204 months; the plea expressly waived the right to appeal if sentenced within that range.
- The district court accepted the plea. The PSR placed Arroyo-Blas in Criminal History Category II (rather than I), producing a Guidelines range of 188–235 months.
- At sentencing the judge acknowledged the C-type agreement and the agreed 180–204 range but treated CHC II as applicable and imposed a 188-month sentence (within the agreed 180–204 range).
- Arroyo-Blas appealed, arguing the court erred in assigning CHC II (which he said produced a higher Guidelines range); he did not meaningfully contest the applicability or enforceability of the waiver of appeal in his opening brief.
- The First Circuit considered whether the unambiguous appeal waiver bars the appeal and dismissed the appeal for failure to overcome or meaningfully challenge the waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Arroyo-Blas' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is barred by the plea agreement's appeal waiver (sentence within 180–204 months) | The waiver does not bar review of alleged Sentencing Guidelines misapplication; the sentence resulted from a miscalculated CHC so appeal should proceed | The waiver is enforceable and bars the appeal because Arroyo‑Blas was sentenced within the agreed 180–204 month range | Waiver is clear and applies; appeal dismissed for failure to overcome/enforceability arguments or show miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rivera-Martínez, 665 F.3d 344 (1st Cir. 2011) (describing C-type plea agreements that bind the court if accepted)
- United States v. Okoye, 731 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2013) (framework for threshold inquiry into scope of appeal waivers)
- United States v. Ocasio-Cancel, 727 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2013) (plea agreements given their plain meaning)
- United States v. McCoy, 508 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2007) (waiver language that references "within the guideline range" may leave open challenges to the guidelines' measurement)
- United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) (factors for enforcing appellate waivers)
- United States v. Edelen, 539 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2008) (three-factor test for binding appellate waivers)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (appellate briefing must develop arguments; skeletal treatment forfeits issues)