United States v. Bartolo Penaloza-Maldonado
677 F. App'x 105
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Bartolo Penaloza-Maldonado pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
- He was sentenced to 88 months’ imprisonment and appealed.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no meritorious issues but raised questions about the validity of his appellate waiver, the knowingness of his plea, and the reasonableness of his sentence.
- The district court conducted a Rule 11 plea colloquy and calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range; the imposed 88-month sentence was below the Guidelines range.
- The Government did not invoke the appellate waiver, so the Fourth Circuit reviewed the substantive claims despite finding the waiver valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of appellate waiver | Waiver may be invalid or not knowing | Waiver was knowingly and voluntarily entered during Rule 11 colloquy | Waiver was valid, but Government did not invoke it so court reviewed merits anyway |
| Validity of guilty plea | Plea may not have been knowing/voluntary | Plea accepted after proper Rule 11 colloquy and supported by facts | Plea was knowing and voluntary; no plain-error reversal |
| Reasonableness of sentence | Sentence may be unreasonable | Sentence below Guidelines and court followed procedural requirements | Sentence was reasonable (procedurally and substantively) |
| Scope of appellate review given waiver | Challenges should be barred by waiver | Government chose not to invoke waiver, allowing review | Waiver valid but not invoked; appellate review permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- United States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2016) (review and enforcement of appellate waivers)
- United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2007) (waiver not binding if Government does not invoke it)
- United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. 2013) (standards for knowing and voluntary guilty plea)
- United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 requirements for plea acceptance)
- United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review when no Rule 11 objection made)
- United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389 (4th Cir. 1992) (finality of valid guilty plea)
- United States v. McCoy, 804 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentence)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)