United States v. Ortiz-Garcia, 665 F.3d 279

Ortiz-García pled guilty to Count Three of the indictment, discharging a deadly weapon in a crime of violence, with the government recommending a 120-month sentence.
The plea agreement did not specify the maximum penalty, which is life imprisonment for § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii); the agreement only stated a minimum of 10 years.
The plea included a waiver of appeal contingent on the court accepting the agreement and sentencing within its terms.
At the change-of-plea hearing, the court informed Ortiz of the minimum penalty but did not inform him of the maximum; Ortiz did not object.
At sentencing, the PSR later indicated a life maximum; Rule 32 notice requirements and PSR review were not properly addressed; the court sent a 360-month sentence.
The sentencing hearing included an incorrect discussion about Ortiz’s right to appeal after not sentencing according to the plea, prompting the Rule 11 challenge and remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appellate waiver was enforceable	Ortiz argues the waiver was not knowingly/voluntarily made due to Rule 11 omission.	The government contends the waiver was valid since the court informed Ortiz and he pled guilty.	Waiver unenforceable; remand for new change-of-plea hearing.
Whether the Rule 11 misinformed Ortiz about the maximum penalty was plain error	Rule 11 omission affected Ortiz's decision to plead guilty.	No plain error; Ortiz could be informed otherwise via PSR or sentencing.	Rule 11 violation constitutes plain error; Ortiz entitled to remand.
Whether the Rule 32 violation regarding PSR review was resolved or affected the case	Rule 32(i)(1)(A) was not satisfied; Ortiz’s review of PSR with counsel was not confirmed.	Evidence suggested Ortiz read/discussed PSR; Rule 32 validity not crucial if Rule 11 already reversible.	Court did not need to decide Rule 32 issue; but Rule 11 plain error warranting remand.

Padilla-Colón, 578 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2009) (validity of appellate waivers depends on knowing voluntary assent)
Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) (defendant must knowingly and voluntarily waive appellate rights)
Acosta-Roman, 549 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (interpret waiver provisions using contract principles; ambiguities resolved in defendant's favor)
Fernández-Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (ambiguous waiver provisions construed to allow appeal when reasonable)
Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (plain-error standard for reviewing undisputed Rule 11 errors)
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (probability view of effect on entering plea due to error)
Rivera-Maldonado, 560 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (Rule 11 error can undermine the decision to plead guilty; survival of the appeal)
Santo, 225 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2000) (link between violation of Rule 11 and decision to plead guilty; high hurdle for plain error)