United States v. Luis Rivera-Cruz, 878 F.3d 404

Background

On Oct. 31, 2015, Rivera‑Cruz fled police in a mall and tossed a fanny pack; a loaded Colt .38 with an obliterated serial number spilled out. He was a convicted felon.
A grand jury indicted him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Trial was set for April 11, 2016; on the eve of trial he pleaded guilty under a plea agreement.
The plea agreement calculated a total offense level (TOL) of 21 and allowed Rivera‑Cruz to argue for 96 months and the government to argue for 120 months; it also included a three‑level acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction and an appeal waiver if the court followed the agreement.
The PSR, however, applied a four‑level enhancement for an obliterated serial number (U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)), yielding TOL 25 and a guidelines range of 110–137 months (CHC VI).
At sentencing the district court adopted the PSR calculations (including the four‑level enhancement), and sentenced Rivera‑Cruz to 120 months. Rivera‑Cruz appealed, arguing the plea agreement lacked consideration and seeking to withdraw his plea.

Issues

Issue	Rivera‑Cruz's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the plea agreement lacked consideration	Plea agreement gave him no meaningful concessions: no charge reductions, government reserved right to seek statutory‑max, and it did not stipulate CHC or offense level	Plea agreement gave consideration: government promised three‑level §3E1.1 reduction, refrained from asserting the 4‑level obliterated‑serial‑number enhancement, and declined to pursue ACCA	Affirmed: plea agreement provided adequate consideration (each of the three benefits sufficed)
Whether Rivera‑Cruz is entitled to withdraw his plea based on lack of consideration	He would not have pled guilty if he had known the plea lacked consideration	Government: agreement was valid; issues do not warrant withdrawal	Denied: absence of deficient consideration not shown; plea stands
Whether counsel was ineffective in advising plea (impacting plea withdrawal)	Counsel failed to inform him the plea lacked consideration, creating reasonable probability he would have gone to trial	Government: no manifestly apparent ineffectiveness in record; claim better raised collaterally	Denied on direct appeal: no manifest ineffective assistance and claim depends on rejected consideration premise
Standard of review for plea‑withdrawal claim on appeal	Rivera‑Cruz urged de novo review	Government urged plain‑error because withdrawal first raised on appeal	Court did not decide because outcome same under either standard

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Tanco‑Pizarro, 873 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2017) (plea agreements interpreted under contract principles)
United States v. Marchena‑Silvestre, 802 F.3d 196 (1st Cir. 2015) (plea agreement contract analysis)
United States v. Conway, 81 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1996) (plea agreements exchange of consideration and “chance at less” concept)
United States v. Ramos‑Mejía, 721 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2013) (procedural posture on withdrawing pleas on appeal)
United States v. Mateo‑Espejo, 426 F.3d 508 (1st Cir. 2005) (denial of §3E1.1(b) where plea was eleventh‑hour)
United States v. Donovan, 996 F.2d 1343 (1st Cir. 1993) (refusal of §3E1.1(b) where late plea deprived government of trial‑avoidance benefits)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (ineffective assistance standard for guilty pleas requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
United States v. Rivera‑González, 626 F.3d 639 (1st Cir. 2010) (generally require collateral raising of ineffective assistance; exceptions when ineffectiveness is manifest)
United States v. Ofray‑Campos, 534 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (manifest ineffectiveness standard)
United States v. Wyatt, 561 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2009) (manifest ineffectiveness standard)
United States v. Neto, 659 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2011) (ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal normally deferred)
United States v. Velez‑Luciano, 814 F.3d 553 (1st Cir. 2016) (waiver of arguments not raised timely)