United States v. Fernandez-Santos, 856 F.3d 10

Background

Fernández, on supervised release for a 2011 cocaine conviction, was arrested in 2014 during a probation-warrant entry; officers found drug paraphernalia, trace cocaine, scales, packaging, ammunition, and a gun he admitted was behind a washing machine.
A grand jury indicted him on three counts: possession with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841), possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
Trial began; after jury selection and opening statements, Fernández pleaded guilty to all three counts during trial and the court accepted the plea following a Rule 11 colloquy.
Seven months later, after counsel changes and a transfer to a Georgia facility, Fernández moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the district court denied the motion as untimely, finding the plea knowing, voluntary, and not credibly innocent.
The district court sentenced Fernández to 76 months on the three counts (concurrent on Counts One and Three; consecutive 60 months on the § 924(c) count) and separately revoked supervised release, imposing a consecutive 24-month revocation term—total 100 months.
On appeal Fernández challenged (1) denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea (arguing lack of understanding, ineffective assistance, timing, and innocence) and (2) procedural unreasonableness of the consecutive revocation sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Fernández)	Held
Whether district court erred in denying motion to withdraw guilty plea	Plea colloquy and record show plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; withdrawal untimely and claim of innocence not credible	Plea was unknowing: inadequate explanation of charges; ineffective assistance of counsel induced plea; delay excused by transfer; he is actually innocent	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Rule 11 colloquy adequate; ineffective-assistance claims improper on direct appeal (may be raised in § 2255); motion untimely; innocence claims not colorable
Whether plea lacked knowledge of elements (mens rea)	Court adequately informed defendant of charges and elements; defendant present during jury instruction	Court’s explanation was too general; he didn’t understand mens rea	Affirmed: Rule 11 satisfied; defendant acknowledged understanding and agreed with government’s factual proffer
Whether defendant can press ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal	Government: record insufficient; district court declined to resolve; such claims should proceed under § 2255	Counsel pressured witnesses, failed to pursue lab results, had conflict—induced plea	Appeal dismissed without prejudice to § 2255: record undeveloped; claim not properly adjudicated below; collateral relief appropriate
Whether revocation term improperly ran consecutively, making sentence procedurally unreasonable	Court had discretion and explained why consecutive sentence appropriate; even if error, no prejudice shown	Court mistakenly believed it had to run revocation consecutive to § 924(c) and thus increased total by 24 months	Affirmed: plain-error review fails—no showing error affected substantial rights; judge would likely have imposed the statutory-maximum revocation sentence anyway

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Caramadre, 807 F.3d 359 (1st Cir. 2015) (standards for withdrawing a guilty plea under Rule 11)
United States v. Gandia-Maysonet, 227 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (Rule 11 requires advising defendant of elements)
United States v. Ramos-Mejía, 721 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2013) (reading indictment and obtaining acknowledgment generally suffices for Rule 11)
United States v. Isom, 85 F.3d 831 (1st Cir. 1996) (ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily reserved for collateral review)
United States v. Cortés-Cabán, 691 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (factors relevant to intent to distribute beyond drug quantity)
United States v. Negrón-Narváez, 403 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2005) (ownership is not an element of § 924(c) possession-in-furtherance)
United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error standard discussion when issues not raised below)
United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1 (1997) (§ 924(c) sentence must run consecutively to other undischarged terms)
United States v. Chambers, 710 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2013) (Rule 11 colloquy as strong evidence of a knowing plea)
United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (defendant must show record evidence that sentence would likely differ to meet plain-error prejudice prong)