United States v. Ocasio-Cancel
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14660
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Angel Ocasio-Cancel pleaded guilty to a federal drug‑trafficking conspiracy charge and executed a nonbinding plea agreement; the district court accepted the plea and ordered a PSI.
- The parties stipulated to a base offense level producing total offense level 25 after adjustments; the PSI recommended Criminal History Category (CHC) III based on prior Puerto Rico probation and revocation, producing a GSR of 70–87 months.
- The plea agreement contemplated that if the court placed the defendant in CHC I–III the defense could request a low‑end sentence and the government would request 70 months; the court placed him in CHC III but rejected the 70‑month recommendation.
- At sentencing the district court imposed the top of the guideline range, 87 months, to run consecutively to an undischarged local sentence; defense counsel had not objected to the PSI calculations and expressly declined to ask for a concurrent federal sentence.
- The defendant appealed asserting (1) his plea was not knowing/voluntary because the court failed to advise that the federal sentence would run consecutively to the local sentence; (2) the appeal waiver was ineffective; and (3) procedural errors in sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including reliance on dismissed local charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/scope of plea‑waiver | Waiver bars appeal if court accepted agreement and sentenced per its terms | Waiver vitiated because court rejected the plea agreement's sentencing recommendation | Waiver was vitiated when the court did not follow the agreed 70‑month recommendation; appeal not barred (waiver fails when court departs from agreement) |
| Whether plea was knowing/voluntary because court did not warn that sentence might be consecutive | A consecutive sentence is discretionary and thus a collateral consequence; no duty to advise; defendant offered no plain error | Failure to advise on non‑mandatory consecutive sentence did not render plea unknowing; no plain error shown | |
| Whether the court mistakenly thought it had to impose consecutive sentence (transforming collateral into direct consequence) | Court had discretion; record shows judge chose consecutiveness because cases were different | Defendant argued court believed consecutiveness was mandatory | Record showed judge believed it had discretion and chose consecutiveness; defendant’s claim fails |
| Procedural sentencing challenges under §3553(a) and reliance on dismissed charges in PSI | PSI facts were unobjected to; sentencing judge may rely on reliable information and may find CHC underrepresents criminality | Defendant argued insufficient §3553(a) explanation and improper reliance on dismissed charges | No plain error: judge considered §3553(a) factors, gave an adequate explanation for a within‑range sentence, and permissibly relied on unobjected PSI material |
Key Cases Cited
- Calderón‑Pacheco v. United States, 564 F.3d 55 (1st Cir.) (use of plea colloquy, plea agreement, PSI to state facts following guilty plea)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (standard for review of plea‑colloquy errors raised on appeal)
- Davila v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty but for the error)
- Murphy‑Cordero v. United States, 715 F.3d 398 (1st Cir.) (plea‑agreement language governs; waiver vitiated if court rejects agreement)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
- Steele v. Murphy, 365 F.3d 14 (1st Cir.) (distinguishing direct and collateral consequences of pleas)
- Carrasco‑de‑Jesús v. United States, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir.) (district court discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences)
- Jiménez‑Beltre v. United States, 440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir.) (inference of sentencing court's consideration of §3553(a) factors from record)