United States v. Pacheco, 921 F.3d 1

Kenny O. Pacheco pleaded guilty in federal court to (1) RICO conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and (2) using/carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
The District Court sentenced Pacheco to consecutive terms: 70 months for the RICO offense and 60 months for the § 924(c) offense.
Pacheco appealed, arguing his federal § 924(c) conviction duplicates a prior Puerto Rico firearms conviction and thus violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The plea agreement contained a general appellate-waiver clause, but the change-of-plea colloquy suggested the waiver did not bar appeals challenging an illegally imposed sentence.
The appellate record included untranslated Spanish-language Puerto Rico conviction documents; under the Jones Act, federal courts may not consider untranslated documents filed from Puerto Rico.
Because the untranslated record prevented resolution of whether the Puerto Rico conviction was the aggravated version that would duplicate the federal offense, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal without prejudice to collateral review based on translated records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pacheco's appellate-waiver bars his double jeopardy claim	Waiver in plea agreement bars appeal because sentence was imposed consistent with agreement	Waiver was not knowing/voluntary as construed at plea colloquy; court told him he could appeal illegal sentences	Waiver did not bar claim — colloquy limited waiver and allowed challenge to an "illegally imposed" sentence
Whether federal § 924(c) conviction duplicates prior Puerto Rico firearms conviction (double jeopardy)	§ 924(c) requires no element beyond Puerto Rico offense; convictions duplicate under Blockburger if Puerto Rico conviction was the aggravated form	Need to know if Puerto Rico conviction included the aggravating element (use to commit a crime)	Court could not decide on the merits because untranslated Puerto Rico records cannot be considered under the Jones Act; appeal dismissed without prejudice

Sotirion v. United States, 617 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2010) (standards for enforceability of appellate waivers)
Teeter v. United States, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) (importance of plea colloquy in waiver inquiry)
United States v. González-Colón, 582 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2009) (written plea agreement must delineate waiver scope)
United States v. Gil-Quezada, 445 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2006) (colloquy controls understanding of waiver; later statements may shed light)
Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798 (2018) (double jeopardy challenge implicates Government's power to prosecute)
United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (waiver of right to appeal and scope relative to conviction legitimacy)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy)
United States v. Millán-Isaac, 749 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2014) (federal courts must not consider untranslated documents)
United States v. Rivera-Rosario, 300 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (Jones Act requires proceedings in English)
United States v. Reyes-Rivas, 909 F.3d 466 (1st Cir. 2018) (untranslated Puerto Rico judgments may not be considered)