United States v. Rivera-Gonzalez
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24560
| 1st Cir. | 2010Background
- Rivera-Gonzalez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine in a Puerto Rico housing project, based on a plea agreement that set a Guidelines range of 70–87 months and allowed the court to sentence up to 40 years.
- The plea agreement incorporated a facts statement outlining participation in at least two drug transactions and weapons involvement, which the PSR later used to justify enhancements.
- The PSR recommended two-level enhancements (location, weapons) and assigned Criminal History II due to probation during the conspiracy, producing a range of 121–151 months.
- Rivera-Gonzalez moved to withdraw his plea three times; the district court denied these motions, concluding the plea was knowing and voluntary and the stipulated facts supported enhancements.
- On July 31, 2008, the district court sentenced Rivera-Gonzalez to 121 months, and he appealed challenging plea validity, ineffective assistance, 4A1.1(d) relief, and sentence reasonableness.
- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, and dismissed the ineffective-assistance claim without prejudice to collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of withdrawal of guilty plea | Rivera-Gonzalez argues the plea was involuntary due to contradictory/ambiguous terms. | United States contends the court properly considered the waiver and that a stiffer sentence does not justify withdrawal. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Ortiz's advice to sign an obvious contradictory/ambiguous plea was deficient, prejudicing Rivera-Gonzalez. | Record insufficient to show deficient performance or prejudice on direct appeal; merits collateral review. | Claim dismissed without prejudice to collateral relief. |
| Sentencing calculation under 4A1.1(d) | District court erred by relying on an uncertain start date for the conspiracy; the witness's reliability should have been tested. | Rivera-Gonzalez admitted participation began in 1999, making 4A1.1(d) applicable; date vagueness does not defeat it. | No clear error; 4A1.1(d) properly applied. |
| Reasonableness of the sentence | Sentence was unreasonable due to disparity with co-defendants and lack of explicit §3553(a) justification. | Within the Guidelines; district court adequately explained considerations and applied §3553(a). | Sentence upheld as reasonable; procedural explanation deemed adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pulido, 566 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for withdrawal of plea)
- United States v. Martinez-Molina, 64 F.3d 719 (1st Cir. 1995) (subsidiary factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Sousa, 468 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006) (no automatic right to withdraw; fair and just reason required)
- United States v. Torres-Rosario, 447 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2006) (courts may treat defendant’s assurances at change-of-plea as credible)
- United States v. Mercedes Mercedes, 428 F.3d 355 (1st Cir. 2005) (courts consider government stance on plea previously negotiated)
- United States v. Ofray-Campos, 534 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily collateral; direct appeal limited)
- United States v. Torres-Rosario, 447 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2006) (weight given to assurances at plea is significant)
- United States v. Vazquez-Molina, 389 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2004) (statutory 3553(a) factors and explanation standards for sentencing)
- United States v. Marceau, 554 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (district court afforded wide discretion; a plausible rationale required)
- United States v. Mueffelman, 470 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2006) (national disparity considerations in §3553(a)(6))
- United States v. Cirilo-Muñoz, 504 F.3d 106 (1st Cir. 2007) (comparative sentencing considerations; differing roles in conspiracy)
- United States v. Goodhue, 486 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2007) (de novo review of sentencing-related findings; mixed standard)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness standard for sentences in post-Booker regime)
- United States v. Almenas, 553 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2009) (adequacy of §3553(a) explanation in sentencing)