United States v. Luis Labastida
700 F. App'x 193
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Luis Labastida pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
- The district court sentenced Labastida to 66 months’ imprisonment, a below-Guidelines sentence.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief certifying no meritorious appeal but questioning whether the plea was knowing and voluntary; Labastida filed a pro se brief repeating that claim and raising sentencing calculation, substantive-reasonableness, and ineffective-assistance claims.
- At the plea hearing an interpreter aided Labastida; the court reviewed the plea agreement, and Labastida stated his attorney had read the indictment and plea agreement in Spanish and answered his questions.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record, rejected the challenges to the plea’s voluntariness, affirmed the district court’s criminal-history calculation and refusal to apply a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(17), found the below-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable, and declined to address ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness/knowing plea | Labastida: plea invalid because he speaks little English and had no written translation of indictment or plea agreement | Government: plea valid; interpreter used and counsel translated/read documents in Spanish | Plea was knowing and voluntary; absence of written translation did not invalidate plea |
| Criminal-history calculation / § 2D1.1(b)(17) reduction | Labastida: district court miscalculated criminal history and wrongly denied two-level reduction | Government: calculation and denial were correct | Fourth Circuit found no error in calculation or denial |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Labastida: below-Guidelines sentence nonetheless substantively unreasonable | Government: sentence within district court’s discretion and is presumptively reasonable | Court concluded record does not rebut presumption of reasonableness for the below-Guidelines 66-month sentence |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Labastida: counsel was ineffective (various failures) | Government: issue not properly reviewed on direct appeal | Court declined to review ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal; such claims are reserved for collateral review |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (constitutional standard for voluntary guilty pleas)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedures when appellate counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263 (4th Cir.) (totality-of-circumstances test for knowing and voluntary plea)
- United States v. Syms, 846 F.3d 230 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing-calculation challenges)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir.) (presumption of reasonableness for sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (appellate review framework for reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502 (4th Cir.) (standard on reviewing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)