United States v. Gonzalez-Arias, 946 F.3d 17

Background

DEA wiretaps, pole‑camera surveillance, undercover buys and GPS tracking over ~1 year tied Juan Elias Gonzalez‑Arias to multi‑kilo heroin trafficking; agents executed a warrant at his Lawrence, MA apartment and seized >1 kg heroin, a loaded gun, $30,088 cash, ledgers, scales, and a kilo press.
Magistrate issued the search warrant on an affidavit by a DEA agent; Gonzalez‑Arias moved to suppress for lack of probable cause (nexus and staleness) and the district court denied the motion.
Gonzalez‑Arias initially hesitated at the Rule 11 hearing because he had not yet reviewed surveillance audio/video; after counsel showed lab reports and the government threatened to withdraw the plea offer, he pled guilty to conspiracy (triggering a 10‑year statutory minimum) and later sought to withdraw his plea.
He moved below alleging ineffective assistance (counsel failed to bring the recordings before the plea), involuntary plea/deficient colloquy, and later sought substitution of counsel; the district court denied plea withdrawal and refused to appoint new counsel, permitting him to proceed pro se with standby counsel.
At sentencing the court set drug weight at 1–3 kg (base offense level 30), added criminal history points for a prior NY indeterminate sentence and for committing the instant offense while on parole, producing a Guidelines range of 121–151 months and sentencing him to 136 months; Gonzalez‑Arias challenged the calculation on appeal.

Issues

Issue	United States' Argument	Gonzalez‑Arias' Argument	Held
1) Motion to suppress — probable cause / nexus / staleness	Affidavit showed a fair probability that drugs, records, weapons would be at his unit based on wiretaps, surveillance, buys, inferences about where traffickers store proceeds and tools	Affidavit lacked direct nexus to unit 18 and the evidence was stale (most recent buys months earlier)	Probable cause established; commonsense inferences, movements leaving the building before deals, food delivery to unit 18, and ongoing operation defeated staleness claim; denial affirmed
2) Motion to withdraw plea — ineffective assistance (failure to deliver recordings pre‑plea)	Even if counsel erred, there is no reasonable probability Gonzalez‑Arias would have rejected the plea and gone to trial given the strength of the evidence and sentencing exposure	Plea was induced by counsel's failure to provide the recordings and coercive government time pressure; would have gone to trial if he had seen evidence	Denied: Hill/Strickland test not met — no reasonable probability outcome would differ; tapes would not have made trial more attractive
3) Plea colloquy / Rule 11 adequacy — belief he could withdraw after seeing discovery	Colloquy was sufficient; defendant understood consequences and admitted guilt; no showing of prejudice	Judge's colloquy left him confused and permitted a mistaken belief he could later withdraw after seeing tapes	Waiver of argument below; in any event no prejudice — no reasonable probability he would have pleaded differently; claim fails
4) Sixth Amendment — motion for new counsel (timeliness and adequacy)	Court adequately inquired, found reasons were tactical/disagreement, not total breakdown; appointment would have caused delay	Counsel-client relationship had irreparable breakdown; counsel colluded with prosecution and refused client requests	Denied: district court's inquiry and factual findings not abused; disagreement and late timing did not require substitution
5) Sixth Amendment — waiver of counsel / going pro se	Defendant unequivocally discharged counsel, accepted standby counsel, and proceeded after warnings; waiver was voluntary and knowing	He stated he did not want to represent himself and never expressly waived counsel	Waiver upheld: the record shows an unambiguous choice to proceed pro se with standby counsel and adequate warnings under Faretta
6) Sentencing — prior NY sentence length and parole points	Guidelines count maximum sentence pronounced and DOCCS records showed parole was not terminated; thus 3 points for prior >1yr and 2 points for being under parole were proper	He only served six months in shock incarceration and parole terminated under NY law before the federal offense, so fewer points should apply	Denied: Guidelines use sentence pronounced (not time served); no evidence parole had been terminated and PSR supported the court's findings; scoring correct

Key Cases Cited

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause is a commonsense, fair‑probability inquiry)
Ventresca v. United States, 380 U.S. 102 (affidavits must be read in a commonsense, realistic fashion)
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (focus on whether evidence to be seized is likely at the place searched)
United States v. Rivera, 825 F.3d 59 (home as likely repository for trafficker's records and proceeds)
United States v. Feliz, 182 F.3d 82 (two‑part probable‑cause nexus analysis)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (ineffective‑assistance standard in plea context)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self‑representation requires a knowing, unequivocal waiver)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing: calculate Guidelines and explain departures)
Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (plain‑error review requirements)