United States v. Lauro Puentes-Hurtado
794 F.3d 1278
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Lauro Puentes-Hurtado pled guilty to (1) narcotics conspiracy (5 kg+ cocaine and 50 g+ methamphetamine) and (2) money-laundering conspiracy pursuant to a written plea agreement that included a broad appeal waiver.
- At the Rule 11 colloquy the court summarized the charges but did not detail the elements; government proffer described involvement in a Mexican DTO, transport of cocaine to Atlanta, and transport of proceeds to Mexico; defendant admitted guilt under oath and signed plea agreement admitting guilt.
- Presentence report attributed 244 kg of cocaine to Puentes-Hurtado, yielding a Guidelines range of 292–365 months (statutory minimum 120 months); parties jointly sought a variance; court varied to 210–262 months and sentenced him to 180 months.
- Puentes-Hurtado appealed despite the waiver, arguing (a) ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the plea involuntary, (b) Rule 11 violations (court didn’t explain elements; insufficient factual basis), and (c) government breached plea by using protected proffer statements to support 244 kg quantity, causing procedural error in Guidelines calculation.
- The Eleventh Circuit held waiver did not bar these categories of claims (ineffective assistance, breach, insufficient factual basis) but denied relief on the merits: ineffective-assistance claim deferred to §2255; no plain error on Rule 11 or factual-basis challenges; any breach or sentencing error was harmless because court stated it would have imposed the same 180-month sentence regardless of drug-quantity finding.
Issues
| Issue | Puentes-Hurtado's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of appeal waiver | Waiver unenforceable where plea involuntary, where counsel ineffective, where factual-basis or breach claims attack the plea | Waiver bars appeal of conviction/sentence on any ground except gov’t appeal or upward departure/variance | Waiver does not bar claims that the plea itself was involuntary, involved ineffective assistance, or that gov’t breached or there was insufficient factual basis; court reached merits of claims |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (advice about drug quantity) | Counsel advised he would be sentenced on ≤5 kg; that advice rendered plea unknowing and involuntary (Strickland/Hill) | Claim is premature on direct appeal; record insufficient to resolve performance and prejudice | Court declines to resolve on direct appeal—remands to §2255 if petitioner wishes; Massaro/Hill standard applies |
| Rule 11 violations: failure to explain elements and insufficient factual basis | District court failed to explain elements of narcotics conspiracy and did not secure adequate factual basis for Count 1 | Colloquy and government proffer plus defendant’s sworn admissions were sufficient; review for plain error | No plain error: failure to explain elements did not affect substantial rights for this "simple" charge; factual-basis claim addressed on merits and found adequate |
| Government breach and Guidelines drug‑quantity finding | Government used proffered (protected) statements to support 244 kg; breach led to procedural error and higher Guidelines range | Any breach/error was harmless because court would have imposed the same 180‑month sentence regardless of quantity | Plain‑error standard: even assuming breach, defendant cannot show substantial rights were affected—sentence would have been the same |
Key Cases Cited
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (plea valid only if voluntary and intelligent)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for plea cases)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (ineffective-assistance claims generally resolved via §2255)
- United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (no overt-act requirement for §846 conspiracy)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error standard for unpreserved errors)
- United States v. Fairchild, 803 F.2d 1121 (11th Cir.) (discussion of whether insufficient-factual-basis claims are waived by plea)
- United States v. Portillo-Cano, 192 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir.) (insufficient factual basis claims go to plea enforceability)