United States v. Martinez
20-1624-cr(L)
2d Cir.Jun 30, 2021Background
- Defendant Freiry Martinez, an MS-13 member, pleaded guilty to a Superseding Information charging racketeering conspiracy to murder (including four murders on April 11, 2017).
- Plea agreement included an appellate-waiver: defendant waived right to appeal any sentence at or below 720 months.
- Government concessions in the plea: move for a 3-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, dismissal of a seven-count Juvenile Information, and a promise not to seek further charges (including not prosecuting under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)).
- District Court sentenced Martinez to 600 months’ imprisonment plus three years supervised release; amended judgment entered June 11, 2020.
- Martinez appealed, arguing the appeal waiver lacked consideration (claiming the Government’s forbearance to prosecute under § 1959(a) had no value because Miller v. Alabama limited life-without-parole exposure for juvenile offenders).
- Second Circuit held the Government’s concessions constituted valid consideration, found the appeal waiver enforceable, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of appellate-waiver in plea agreement | Martinez: waiver unenforceable for lack of consideration | Govt: plea concessions (3-level motion, dismissal of juvenile info, promise not to prosecute further) are adequate consideration | Waiver enforceable; appeal dismissed |
| Value of Government's forbearance not to charge under § 1959(a) | Forbearance was illusory because Miller limited mandatory LWOP for juveniles, so it conferred no benefit | Even if one concession had reduced value, other distinct concessions provided real consideration | Rejected Martinez’s lack-of-consideration argument; overall package constitutes consideration |
| Applicability of exceptions to waiver (e.g., not knowing/voluntary, government breach, sentencing on impermissible factors, no rationale) | Martinez implied waiver should be unenforceable | No showing any narrow exception applied (waiver was made knowingly/voluntarily; no breach; sentence within agreed range) | No exception applied; waiver stands |
| Review of substantive reasonableness of sentence | Martinez argued sentence substantively unreasonable | Govt: waiver bars review because sentence below 720-month cap | Court did not reach substantive-reasonableness claim because waiver bars review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arevalo, 628 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (establishes that appeal waivers are presumptively enforceable)
- United States v. Burden, 860 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2017) (describes the narrowly circumscribed exceptions to waiver enforceability)
- United States v. Gomez-Perez, 215 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2000) (identifies specific grounds for deeming an appeal waiver unenforceable)
- United States v. Lutchman, 910 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2018) (discusses consideration and enforceability issues in plea waivers)
- United States v. Ojeda, 946 F.3d 622 (2d Cir. 2020) (explains courts may enforce waivers even where sentence might be conceivably illegal if within range contemplated by plea)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holds mandatory life-without-parole sentences are unconstitutional for offenders who were juveniles at the time of the offense)