United States v. Llanos-Falero, 847 F.3d 29

Background

In 2011 Llanos-Falero planned and participated in an armed bank robbery in Puerto Rico; co-defendants used a shotgun and stole insured deposits. He was not immediately arrested for the robbery.
Before federal indictment, Llanos-Falero was convicted in Puerto Rico for domestic violence (2012) and illegal possession of a submachine gun (2013) and was serving those sentences when federally indicted in 2014.
He pleaded guilty in federal court (July 3, 2014) to aiding and abetting armed bank robbery (Count One) and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (Count Two), pursuant to a plea agreement that recommended concurrent federal-Commonwealth sentencing and specified a joint recommended term (72 months + 60 months consecutive = 132 months total).
At the change-of-plea colloquy he disclosed bipolar disorder and that he was taking Elavil, Vistaril, and another medication that morning; the judge asked if he felt okay and could enter a knowing plea, defense counsel confirmed no doubts, and the judge accepted the plea.
At sentencing (Dec. 2, 2014) the district court imposed 77 months on Count One and the mandatory 60 months on Count Two, to run consecutively (total 137 months), and ordered the federal sentence to run consecutively to his Puerto Rico sentences. Llanos-Falero appealed.

Issues

Issue	Llanos-Falero's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule 11 colloquy was insufficient because the court failed to probe effects of medications on competence to plead	Court failed to ask follow-up about medication type/dose/effects and thus did not ensure a knowing, voluntary plea	The judge asked whether he felt okay and could make a voluntary plea, counsel had no doubts, and judge made a demeanor-based competence finding — satisfying Rule 11	No plain error; colloquy (questions, counsel assurance, judge’s finding) satisfied Rule 11 requirements
Whether the court erred by not advising that it might impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentence (affecting voluntariness)	Failure to warn about potential consecutive sentence deprived him of making an informed plea	Plea agreement and court advisements informed him that court could reject recommendations and that he could not withdraw plea for that reason; no reasonable probability of a different outcome	No plain error; Rule 11 advisement and plea agreement covered that risk
Whether the imposed sentence (137 months consecutive to Puerto Rico terms) was substantively unreasonable	Sentence materially longer than plea recommendation and court failed to account for mitigation (guilt admission, severe depression)	Judge considered PSR, offense details, §3553(a) factors, and permissibly ordered consecutive service under relevant law	No abuse of discretion; sentencing within Guidelines, court explained reasoning, consecutive service permissible

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Padilla, 415 F.3d 211 (1st Cir. 2005) (plain-error framework for unpreserved Rule 11 claims)
United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (standard for plain-error review)
United States v. Parra-Ibañez, 936 F.2d 588 (1st Cir. 1991) (district court must follow up when recent medication use is disclosed)
United States v. Kenney, 756 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2014) (clarifying Parra-Ibañez requires follow-up, not absolute bar to plea)
Cody v. United States, 249 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2001) (post-change-of-plea medication inquiry principles)
Miranda-González v. United States, 181 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 1999) (failure to investigate recent drug ingestion can invalidate plea)
United States v. Morrisette, 429 F.3d 318 (1st Cir. 2005) (demeanor-based competence findings can satisfy Rule 11)
United States v. Rodríguez-León, 402 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2005) (deference to district court’s credibility and demeanor assessments)
United States v. Savinon-Acosta, 232 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2000) (no rigid requirement to identify precise drug names/quantities at plea)
United States v. Carrasco-de-Jesús, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (sentencer may order federal sentence consecutive to undischarged state sentence)
United States v. Cortés-Medina, 819 F.3d 566 (1st Cir. 2016) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (reasonableness presumption for Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (prejudice standard for Rule 11 errors)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (requirement for strong mitigating showing to overcome within-Guidelines sentence)