United States v. Rivera-Clemente
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2300
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- On October 19, 2011 Joel Manuel Rivera‑Clemente and a minor entered the Sabana Seca Navy Base to steal copper; after being escorted off by security guard Frankie Rondon‑Rosario, they returned later with others intending to steal what they believed was the guard’s gun.
- Two companions (including Josean Clemente) shot and killed the guard; Rivera‑Clemente did not fire the fatal shots but was charged with aiding and abetting murder (18 U.S.C. § 1111, § 2) and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm causing death (18 U.S.C. § 924(c), § 2).
- Rivera‑Clemente pleaded guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(A)/(B) plea agreement that calculated a Guidelines Sentencing Range (GSR) of 270–322 months and recommended a joint sentence of 276 months.
- At sentencing the district court accepted the GSR but rejected the parties’ recommendation and imposed the high end of the range: 322 months (including a consecutive 60‑month mandatory term on the § 924(c) count).
- On appeal Rivera‑Clemente argued (1) the district court failed to advise him, at the plea colloquy, that he could not withdraw his plea if the court rejected the sentencing recommendation (Rule 11(c)(3)(B)), and (2) the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Rivera‑Clemente) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11(c)(3)(B) warning omission | Failure to warn is curable where plea agreement and other colloquy make nonwithdrawal clear | Court erred by not informing him he could not withdraw plea if court rejected recommendation; prejudiced his rights | Error was plain but not prejudicial; no plain‑error reversal because plea agreement, translations, and court statements put defendant on ample notice |
| Interpreter oath | No showing of prejudice from interpreter not being sworn | Interpreter was not sworn at plea/sentencing, violating procedure | No plain error: defendant showed no record evidence of misunderstanding or prejudice |
| § 3553(a) procedural adequacy | Court considered relevant factors and GSR reflects § 3553(a) considerations | Court failed to consider defendant’s youth, upbringing, limited role, and that sentence was greater than necessary | No plain error: record shows the court considered history, seriousness, victim impact, and weighed factors; explanation adequate under § 3553(c) |
| Substantive reasonableness of within‑range sentence | Within‑range, well‑reasoned sentence tied to offense seriousness and prior uncharged conduct | Sentence excessive given limited role, youth, no record | Sentence not substantively unreasonable; defendant offered no powerful mitigating reasons; court permissibly emphasized crime gravity |
Key Cases Cited
- Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (standard for showing Rule 11 error affected substantial rights)
- Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (contextual inquiry when Rule 11 warning omitted)
- Hernández‑Maldonado, 793 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (Rule 11 omissions can be plain error but require prejudice showing)
- Ortiz‑García, 665 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2011) (sources for facts after guilty plea)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deference to district court’s consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
- Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (standards for substantive reasonableness review)
- Rivera‑Gonzalez, 626 F.3d 639 (1st Cir. 2010) (what constitutes an adequate § 3553(c) explanation)