United States v. Ramiro Plascencia-Orozco
852 F.3d 910
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ramiro Plascencia-Orozco (born in Mexico) has a long history of illegal entry, removals, and aliases; he used the identity documents of U.S. citizen Alberto Del Muro beginning in the 1980s.
- In January 2008 Plascencia presented Del Muro’s birth certificate at Calexico, was found with >100 kg marijuana, pleaded guilty to drug importation, received 46 months custody and 3 years supervised release, and agreed the government would not prosecute certain charges unless he breached the plea or unlawfully returned during supervised release.
- In August 2011 Plascencia again attempted entry at San Ysidro using Del Muro’s birth certificate; he was arrested and later indicted on two counts of aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. §1028A) and two counts of attempted illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. §1326) (one set tied to 2011; one set reinstated from 2008 as a claimed breach).
- At the 2014 trial the jury convicted Plascencia on all counts; the district court sentenced him to 184 months (160 months for reentry counts + two consecutive 24-month terms for identity theft) and issued a post-sentencing standalone order directing him to use the name Ramiro Plascencia-Orozco (later vacated by the court of appeals).
- On appeal Plascencia challenged: denial of a late request for new counsel; the district court’s finding that he breached the 2008 plea agreement and procedure used to reinstate charges; various evidentiary rulings at trial; and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Plascencia) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of late request for new counsel | Replacement requests were justified by conflicts and ineffective counsel | Requests were untimely, dilatory, and court adequately inquired; no complete breakdown | Denial affirmed — court did not abuse discretion (requests untimely; no total breakdown) |
| Whether Plascencia breached 2008 plea and who decides breach (judge vs jury) | Only attempted reentry conviction occurred, so did not "unlawfully return"; breach is factual and should be submitted to jury (or government must seek pre-indictment judicial finding) | Plea language unambiguous; presenting at U.S. port meant unlawful return; judge may decide breach at pretrial hearing; Rule 12(b) and Packwood procedures suffice | Breach finding affirmed; court correctly decided breach by preponderance at motions-in-limine hearing and need not submit breach to jury or require pre-indictment judicial finding |
| Need for evidentiary hearing on breach sua sponte | Court should have held an evidentiary hearing before finding breach | Plascencia never requested hearing and raised no factual dispute necessitating one | No plain error — court not required to hold sua sponte hearing absent a requested factual dispute |
| Evidentiary rulings at trial (admission of Mexican birth certificate; questioning about Del Muros; prosecutor asking if Matilde lied) | Birth certificate irrelevant; some cross questions and prosecutor question were improper and prejudicial; juror-bias inquiry required after alleged gesture | Birth certificate was relevant under Rule 104(b)/Huddleston; testimony showed knowledge the ID belonged to a real person; prosecutor’s question was improper but cured by instruction; gesture was not an external influence | Admission of birth certificate and other prior-testimony evidence affirmed; prosecutor’s improper question not plain error given curative instruction and overwhelming evidence; no juror-bias hearing required (gesture internal to proceedings) |
| Sentence reasonableness and name-order authority | Sentence substantively excessive given age, health, personality disorder; court lacked authority to order name use | Guidelines range properly calculated; §3553(a) factors considered; name-order was beyond authority | 184-month sentence affirmed as not an abuse; district court lacked authority for standalone name-order, which was vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsey v. United States, 634 F.3d 541 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing denial of new counsel)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- Clark v. United States, 218 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.) (plea agreements construed like contracts)
- Packwood, United States v., 848 F.2d 1009 (9th Cir.) (procedures and burden to prove breach of plea agreement by preponderance)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (Rule 104(b) standard for conditional relevance for admission of evidence)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (statutory requirement that defendant know means of identification belonged to another)
- United States v. Alcantara-Castillo, 788 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.) (prosecutor may not ask defendant to vouch for another witness’s truthfulness)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for harmless and plain error review)