United States v. Caramadre
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21175
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Caramadre, a lawyer and accountant, was indicted for a long-running fraud scheme and pled guilty to two counts after four trial days.
- District court accepted the pleas; remaining counts were dismissed by the government.
- Before sentencing, Caramadre sought to withdraw his guilty plea; the district court held a multi-day evidentiary hearing and denied the motion.
- Caramadre was sentenced to six years; restitution of about $46,000,000 was recommended by a magistrate and adopted by the district court.
- Caramadre appealed on numerous grounds; the First Circuit granted review and affirmed, focusing on the most plausible issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was plea withdrawal properly denied? | Caramadre (Caramadre) contends error in standard and balance of factors. | Caramadre argues district court misapplied rules and was biased. | No reversible error; proper standard and factor balance used. |
| Did district court abuse its discretion balancing factors for withdrawal? | Caramadre asserts a 'perfect storm' rendered plea involuntary. | Caramadre asserts the court undervalued his evidence of incompetence/medication effects. | No abuse; record supported court's weighing and credibility determinations. |
| Was there judicial bias warranting recusal or reversible error? | Caramadre claims district court’s language shows bias. | Caramadre argues bias; government argues waiver/plain-error review governs first appeal. | No reversible bias; plain-error review rejected bias claim. |
| Was the Rule 10(c) settlement of the proceedings proper? | Caramadre contends district court relied on an incorrect version of events. | Caramadre challenges using the court’s recollection; asserts improper expansion of record. | District court acted within discretion; may rely on its recollection during settlement of Rule 10(c) statement. |
| Does the plea waiver bar appellate review of restitution and sentencing? | Waiver should not bar review of restitution; lack of explicit restitution language in waiver. | Waiver extends to restitution pursuant to Okoye; sentencing review barred; miscarriage of justice not shown. | Appeal waiver applies; restitution and sentencing review barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gates, 709 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2013) (plea-withdrawal standard; de novo review for legal questions)
- United States v. Ramos-Mejía, 721 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2013) (no absolute right to withdraw plea)
- United States v. Doyle, 981 F.2d 591 (1st Cir. 1992) (prejudice considerations in withdrawal context)
- United States v. Buckley, 847 F.2d 998 (1st Cir. 1988) (court's credibility determinations retain deference)
- United States v. Savinon-Acosta, 232 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2000) (drug/medication effects on understanding proceedings)
- Okoye, United States v. Okoye, 731 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2013) (waiver extends to restitution when encompassed by sentence)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court 1994) (judicial remarks alone generally insufficient for recusal)