United States v. Murphy-Cordero
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10541
1st Cir.2013Background
- Murphy-Cordero pled guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 860.
- The district court applied a two-level dangerous weapon enhancement under USSG §2D1.1(b)(1), producing a 210-month sentence.
- Plea agreement was non-binding and contained a waiver-of-appeal provision, claiming defendant waives appeal if sentenced per the agreement.
- The district court suggested the waiver would limit appeal to testing the dangerous weapon enhancement.
- The waiver was ultimately held inapplicable to circumscribe the appeal, so the appeal was not limited as argued.
- On remaining issues, the court upheld the weapon enhancement, found no plain error in §3553(a) consideration, and summarily affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the appeal waiver | Waiver did not unambiguously bar challenge to the enhancement. | Waiver limited appeal to the propriety of the enhancement. | Waiver vitiated; scope not circumscribed; appeal allowed. |
| Support for the dangerous weapon enhancement | Record does not support applying the enhancement. | Admitted possession of firearms and PSI supported enhancement. | Enhancement adequately grounded; valid. |
| §3553(a) factor consideration and explanation | Court failed adequately to consider §3553(a) factors and explain the sentence. | Issue raised below; no explicit objection to reasoning. | No plain error; court considered factors and provided sufficient explanation for a within-range sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) (waiver of appellate rights must be knowing, voluntary, and unequivocal)
- United States v. Ortiz-Santiago, 211 F.3d 146 (1st Cir. 2000) (waivers construed like contract terms)
- United States v. Jiménez, 512 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (admission of facts can operate as waiver of claims)
- United States v. Rodríguez, 311 F.3d 435 (1st Cir. 2002) (defense acknowledgment of PSI facts supports sentencing rulings)
- United States v. Medina, 167 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 1999) (presentence facts not objected to may be treated as true for sentencing)
- United States v. Rosales, 19 F.3d 763 (1st Cir. 1994) (presentence factual statements may be treated as true for sentencing)
- United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error review governs unraised §3553(a) issues)
- United States v. Robinson, 241 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error review governs sentencing-argument preservation)
- United States v. Lozada-Aponte, 689 F.3d 791 (1st Cir. 2012) (courts assess consideration of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Madera-Ortiz, 637 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (within-range sentence may require less elaborate explanation)
- United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2006) (brevity can accompany a plausible sentencing rationale)
- United States v. Gates, 709 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2013) (within-range sentence; guidelines advisory; need for explanation)
- United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc; within-range sentencing standard of review)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court 2005) (guidelines are advisory; reasonableness matters)