United States v. Oppenheimer-Torres
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19795
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- From 2004–2012 Oppenheimer led a drug-trafficking organization in Puerto Rico public housing; indicted in 2012 and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic drugs near public housing (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, 860) and to carrying a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- The Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea agreement stipulated that the parties would recommend a 135–168 month sentence on the conspiracy count (assuming Criminal History Category I) and that the government would not ask for more than 168 months on that count; the firearm count carried a consecutive 60-month minimum.
- The agreement included an appeal waiver by Oppenheimer conditioned on being “sentenced in accordance with” the Agreement’s sentencing recommendation.
- At sentencing the prosecutor initially misstated the government’s position and referenced a higher Criminal History Category (II), then corrected that misstep and reaffirmed the agreed recommendation (seeking the 135–168 range, specifically the high end of 168 months).
- The district court imposed 150 months on the conspiracy count and 60 months on the firearm count (total 210 months), a sentence within the agreed 135–168 range; Oppenheimer appealed claiming breach of the plea agreement and defects in plea acceptance.
Issues
| Issue | Oppenheimer's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by initially recommending a sentence inconsistent with the agreement | The prosecutor’s initial recommendation deviated from the stipulated recommendation, so the condition precedent to the appeal waiver failed | The transcript shows the prosecutor promptly corrected the mistake; any error was curable and the final recommendation complied with the Agreement | No breach; plea agreement enforced and appeal waiver valid |
| Whether plain-error review applies given Oppenheimer failed to preserve the breach claim below | Oppenheimer contends the breach was material despite not objecting | Government contends defendant did not preserve the error and cannot now invoke a preserved-error remedy | Plain-error standard applies; Oppenheimer fails to satisfy it |
| Whether the guilty plea was involuntary or lacked an adequate factual basis (Rule 11) | Oppenheimer contends the plea was undermined by a court misstatement and inadequate factual basis | Government points out defendant never moved to withdraw plea and seeks only resentencing under the Agreement | Court refuses to consider these arguments because defendant seeks benefits of the plea while attacking its validity; appeal waiver stands |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal given the appeal waiver | Oppenheimer seeks resentencing despite waiver | Government argues the waived appeal is enforceable because sentence conformed to the Agreement | Court finds it lacks jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kurkculer, 918 F.2d 295 (1st Cir.) (pre-Puckett law that some erroneous recommendations were not curable)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court) (some breaches of sentencing-recommendation agreements may be curable upon timely objection)
- United States v. Ocasio-Cancel, 727 F.3d 85 (1st Cir.) (standard for deriving facts after a guilty plea)
- United States v. Alcalá-Sánchez, 666 F.3d 571 (9th Cir.) (finding breach where prosecutor’s equivocations created doubt about government’s position)
- United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir.) (defendant who does not wish to withdraw plea should not be permitted to attack voluntariness while retaining plea benefits)
- United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir.) (plain-error review framework)