United States v. Delgado-Lopez
837 F.3d 131
1st Cir.2016Background
- Delgado-López pleaded guilty to Count One (drug conspiracy) and Count Six (using/carrying a firearm in furtherance of the conspiracy) as part of a plea deal; counts 2–5 were dismissed.
- At the Rule 11 colloquy Delgado‑López said he understood the charges and consequences, but insisted the weapons allegation was "a lie;" the judge explained pleading guilty could avoid a much harsher post-trial sentence.
- At sentencing the PSR added two criminal-history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) for committing the offense while on probation, moving Delgado‑López from CHC I to II and raising the Guidelines range for Count One.
- Delgado‑López received 33 months on the drug count (bottom of the applicable Guidelines range) and the mandatory 60 months on the § 924(c) weapons count, consecutive.
- He did not object in the district court to the plea or to the PSR’s probation finding; he appeals both the validity/factual basis of the § 924(c) plea and the probation-based Guidelines enhancement.
- The First Circuit reviews these forfeited issues for plain error and affirms both the plea acceptance and the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Delgado‑López's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/knowing plea on Count Six (§ 924(c)) | Plea was not "knowing" because he maintained the weapons allegation was false and had limited intellectual/educational capacity, so no factual basis existed | District court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy, warned him of risks, and the record provided a sufficient factual basis (witnesses, marshal observation) | Affirmed: plea was knowing and supported by an adequate factual basis |
| Factual basis for weapons charge | Government lacked direct proof; his denial shows no factual basis for pleading guilty to carrying a firearm | Government had witnesses and a marshal's observation providing a rational factual basis sufficient under Rule 11 standards | Affirmed: government met the modest showing required for factual basis |
| PSR enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) (on probation) | Enhancement was erroneous; he was not on probation when the instant offense occurred | Defendant failed to object in district court; sentencing court may rely on unobjected-to PSR facts | Affirmed: district court properly relied on PSR; even if error, no reasonable probability of a different sentence |
| Plain-error review burden | Error in plea or sentencing would require showing clear error affecting substantial rights and integrity of proceedings | Forfeiture applies; Delgado‑López cannot show reasonable probability he would not have pled or would have received a different sentence | Affirmed: Delgado‑López fails to meet plain-error requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ramos-Mejía, 721 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2013) (standards for Rule 11 and plain-error review of pleas)
- United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error framework)
- United States v. Chambers, 710 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2013) (rejecting involuntariness claim under waiver-like plea provisions)
- United States v. Delgado-Hernández, 420 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2005) (Rule 11 charge-reading sufficient to establish understanding)
- United States v. Cruz, 120 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997) (PSR facts may be treated as reliable absent objection)
- United States v. Fernández-Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (PSR reliance without objection affirmed)
- United States v. Cintrón-Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (sentencing court may rely on unchallenged PSR facts)
- United States v. Urbina-Robles, 817 F.3d 838 (1st Cir. 2016) (explaining burden to show reasonable probability one would not have pled)
- United States v. Padilla, 415 F.3d 211 (1st Cir. 2005) (plain-error harmlessness in sentencing context)
- United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2006) (discussion of waiver vs. forfeiture for PSR objections)