United States v. Javier Andres
666 F. App'x 621
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Javier Andres trafficked a 16-year-old girl from Guatemala to Arizona and required her to work in his home to repay an asserted smuggling debt; he and his wife told her she could not leave and threatened recapture.
- Andres raped the Victim and she suffered severe injury in childbirth.
- Andres pleaded guilty to one count of Harboring an Alien for Private Financial Gain under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i) under a plea agreement that stipulated a within-Guidelines sentence (PSR range 21–27 months).
- At sentencing the district court rejected the stipulated sentence as insufficient given the seriousness of the conduct; Andres declined to withdraw his plea and sentencing proceeded without the agreement.
- The district court adopted the PSR facts, applied Guideline enhancements (including involuntary detention), calculated an adjusted offense level of 18, departed upward, and sentenced Andres to 40 months.
- On appeal Andres argued the district court erred in rejecting the plea agreement without applying § 3553(a) factors and challenged the Guidelines enhancements; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court was required to consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before rejecting a stipulated plea sentence | Andres: district court must consider § 3553(a) factors before rejecting stipulated sentence | Government: rejection of a plea does not itself impose a sentence; § 3553(a) factors apply when imposing sentence | Court: No error; § 3553(a) governs sentencing choice, not the decision to reject a plea; court nonetheless made the requisite individualized findings and addressed deterrence and seriousness (In re Morgan satisfied) |
| Whether the involuntary-detention enhancement § 2L1.1(b)(8)(A) requires physical restraint or threat of physical injury | Andres: “involuntary detention” requires physical restraint or threat of physical injury | Government: statute and commentary encompass threats/coercion that need not be physical; economic/moral coercion suffices | Court: Affirmed enhancement; plain meaning and Sentencing Commission commentary allow nonphysical threats/coercion; district factfinding that Victim was coerced and detained was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the facts supported a finding that detention was connected to a demand for payment | Andres: connection to payment not established | Government: Victim was told she could leave only if she paid $1,000, showing connection | Court: Held connection established and factual finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the Serious Bodily Injury enhancement error would affect sentence | Andres: challenge to Serious Bodily Injury enhancement | Government: even without that enhancement, § 2L1.1(b)(8)(A) produces minimum adjusted level 18 | Court: Did not reach merits because even if reversed, offense level remains 18; no effect on sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Morgan v. U.S. Dist. Court, 506 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007) (individualized consideration required when rejecting stipulated plea sentence)
- United States v. Rivera-Constantino, 798 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2015) (statutory/GUIDELINES interpretation uses plain text, context, and structure)
- United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 2016) (court may consult Sentencing Commission statements of reasons for guidance)
- United States v. Barker, 771 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussion of sentencing policy and deterrence considerations)
- United States v. Meza-Corrales, 183 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1999) (voluntariness is a factual question; clear-error review of district findings)