United States v. Jose Medina-Carrasco
806 F.3d 1205
9th Cir.2015Background
- Medina‑Carrasco pled guilty to illegal reentry under a “fast‑track” plea agreement that listed 18 possible guideline ranges (4–10 to 70–87 months) without specifying how the applicable offense level would be calculated.
- The plea agreement contained a broad appellate‑rights waiver: the defendant waived challenges to “any aspect of the defendant’s sentence — including the manner in which the sentence is determined and any sentencing guideline determinations,” but only "provided the defendant receives a sentence in accordance with this fast‑track plea agreement."
- At the Rule 11 colloquy the defendant affirmed he understood the broad sentencing grid (3 offense levels × 6 criminal history categories), that the judge would determine the applicable slot, and that he was waiving appeal/collateral rights.
- The PSR applied the modified categorical approach and treated a prior Arizona aggravated assault conviction as a "crime of violence," adding 16 levels under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, producing a 57–71 month range.
- Defense counsel sought a downward variance/departure, conceded at sentencing the prior offense was a crime of violence (level 24), and raised no guideline objections; the district court imposed a below‑guidelines 55‑month sentence.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the waiver was ambiguous and therefore not knowing/voluntary, and (2) the prior conviction was not a crime of violence so the guidelines enhancement was incorrect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Medina‑Carrasco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of appellate waiver | Waiver language covers appeals of sentencing and guideline determinations; plea colloquy and written agreement show waiver was knowing and voluntary | "In accordance with" caveat is ambiguous (could mean sentence must be based on correct guideline calculation), so waiver was not knowing/voluntary | Waiver is enforceable: "in accordance with" means the sentence need only fall within the grid; plea colloquy made terms clear; dismissal of appeal upheld |
| Scope of "in accordance with" caveat | Requires only that final sentence fall within the grid ranges listed in the agreement | Could require a correct guideline calculation; otherwise waiver would be meaningless or self‑defeating | Court adopts government’s interpretation; alternate reading rejected as implausible and inconsistent with waiver text |
| Challenge to guideline calculation (crime of violence) | Even if arguable, defendant waived challenges to guideline determinations; defendant conceded the enhancement and did not object to PSR | The Arizona aggravated assault (A.R.S. § 13‑203(A)(3)) is divisible and does not necessarily involve "physical force" under Johnson; the 16‑level enhancement was incorrect | Court need not reach merits because waiver bars the claim; sentence was within agreed grid and lawyer conceded application; appeal dismissed |
| Validity of plea colloquy and understanding of grid | Colloquy and counsel’s explanation rendered the complicated grid and waiver clear to defendant | Grid and caveat were confusing; magistrate failed to clarify the caveat; waiver therefore not knowing/intelligent | Colloquy plus written waiver sufficient; defendant’s affirmations bind him; waiver valid |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Charles, 581 F.3d 927 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing appeal waivers and knowing/voluntary inquiry)
- United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir.) (waiver enforceability test: scope and voluntariness)
- United States v. De la Fuente, 8 F.3d 1333 (9th Cir.) (determine what defendant reasonably understood when pleading guilty)
- United States v. Cope, 527 F.3d 944 (9th Cir.) (interpret plea agreements under contract principles)
- United States v. Schuman, 127 F.3d 815 (9th Cir.) (reject waiver readings that render terms meaningless)
- United States v. Castillo, 496 F.3d 947 (9th Cir.) (overruling context cited for waiver jurisprudence)
- United States v. Smith, 500 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir.) (warning against nullifying waivers by permitting the very challenge waived)
- United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir.) (enforce waivers even when potential appellate claims later appear meritorious)
- United States v. Marcia‑Acosta, 780 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir.) (definition of "crime of violence" under § 2L1.2)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (holding mere touching does not qualify as use of physical force for categorical analyses)