United States v. Fonseca, 49 F.4th 1

Fonseca, a British Virgin Islands resident, was charged with conspiring to import cocaine into the U.S. (May 2012–July 2014) and related money laundering; no drugs were ultimately imported.
The indictment alleged several overt acts committed in the United States, including wire transfers totaling at least $40,000; Fonseca stipulated to these facts in a plea agreement and adopted a statement of facts.
Fonseca pleaded guilty in August 2016 and waived appeal of the judgment and sentence if the sentence matched the plea recommendation.
He filed multiple pro se and counseled motions to withdraw his plea, the fourth of which relied on co-defendant Edwards’s sentencing testimony as newly discovered exculpatory evidence.
The magistrate judge recommended granting withdrawal; the district court denied it (citing implausibility of the new claim, delay, and prejudice), sentenced Fonseca to 120 months, and Fonseca appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to withdraw guilty plea	Gvt: denial proper; plea was knowing and voluntary, and reasons for withdrawal were weak and delayed	Fonseca: Edwards’s testimony is newly discovered exculpatory evidence showing he lacked intent and should be allowed to withdraw plea	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion: plea knowing/voluntary, proffered innocence not serious or new, delays undermined claim
Whether district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over conspiracy charge	Gvt: indictment tracked statutes; jurisdiction appropriate because an alleged overt act occurred in U.S.	Fonseca: as a BVI resident who never entered U.S., court lacked extraterritorial jurisdiction because his conduct had no substantial U.S. effect	Affirmed — indictment facially valid; alleged U.S. overt acts by co-conspirators suffice at motion-to-dismiss stage
Whether district court lacked personal jurisdiction or should have held a hearing on forcible rendition	Gvt: personal-jurisdiction challenge waived by plea-appeal waiver; no preserved jurisdictional basis presented	Fonseca: was unlawfully transported to Puerto Rico after detention abroad, invoking Toscanino to divest jurisdiction	Affirmed — claim is within appeal waiver and thus barred; court did not address substantive merits

United States v. Parrilla-Tirado, 22 F.3d 368 (1st Cir. 1994) ("fair and just reason" standard for plea withdrawal)
United States v. Isom, 580 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2009) (knowing and voluntary plea is the most important factor)
United States v. Mendoza, 963 F.3d 158 (1st Cir. 2020) (abuse-of-discretion review of plea-withdrawal denials)
United States v. Gardner, 5 F.4th 110 (1st Cir. 2021) (listing factors to weigh for plea withdrawal, including prejudice)
United States v. George, 676 F.3d 249 (1st Cir. 2012) (indictment that tracks statutory language suffices for federal jurisdiction)
United States v. Stewart, 744 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2014) (scope of conspiracy and overt-act sufficiency are jury questions at trial)
United States v. Woodward, 149 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1998) (territorial-effects doctrine for extraterritorial jurisdiction)
United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974) (extreme government misconduct in securing presence may divest jurisdiction)