United States v. Rodriguez-Adorno
852 F.3d 168
1st Cir.2017Background
- Rodríguez-Adorno was part of an eight-year drug-trafficking conspiracy from a Puerto Rico public-housing project involving multiple controlled substances; he acted mainly as a street-level seller and lookout.
- Indicted in 2010; arrested in 2014 and pled guilty in 2014 to count one (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances in a protected location) under a written plea agreement; other counts dismissed.
- Plea agreement stipulated 500g–<2,000g of cocaine and contemplated a total offense level of 25; sentencing was unconstrained and the parties reserved positions based on Criminal History Category (CHC).
- PSI recommended career-offender enhancement (two predicate clusters), raising the offense level to 31 and CHC to VI, yielding a Guidelines range of 188–235 months; government recommended 100 months (did not factor career-offender), defendant sought 70 months.
- District court accepted plea, warned it was not bound by the agreement, and later sentenced Rodríguez-Adorno to 235 months (top of Guidelines range); defendant appealed, raising plea and sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Rodríguez‑Adorno) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing and voluntary because the court did not read indictment verbatim | Court satisfied Rule 11 and made sufficient factual recitation; defendant had admitted understanding | Court erred by not reading count one verbatim and thus defendant did not understand scope | Rejected — no plain error; colloquy and admissions were adequate under Rule 11 (Jones, Dunfee) |
| Whether plea was uninformed because court/Agreement failed to warn about possible career‑offender enhancement | Agreement and colloquy warned court would calculate Guidelines and that CHC could affect sentence; no duty to forecast PSI results | Failure to mention career‑offender meant plea was not fully informed | Rejected — no plain error; court need not predict detailed future guideline calculations at plea stage (Jimenez, Jones) |
| Whether misstatement of statutory maximum at plea hearing (said 40 yrs vs actual 80 yrs) invalidated plea | Government notes Agreement and PSI correctly stated 80‑year maximum; defendant negotiated below statutory max | Misstatement of maximum violated Rule 11(b)(1)(H) and undermined voluntariness | Rejected — plain error elements not satisfied; defendant failed to show a reasonable probability he would not have pled but for the error (Ocasio‑Cancel) |
| Whether sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable (including §3553(a) factors and disparity with co‑defendants) | Court addressed §3553(a), considered history, offense, and chosen a plausible rationale for high‑end Guidelines sentence | Court failed to properly weigh §3553(a) factors, ignored mitigating history and disparity among co‑defendants | Rejected — no plain error; court expressly considered §3553(a), gave a plausible rationale and within‑Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable (Martin, Rita); disparity claim unsupported by evidence of similarly situated comparators |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 778 F.3d 375 (1st Cir.) (Rule 11 does not require a fixed script; totality of colloquy controls)
- United States v. Jimenez, 512 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (plea colloquy need not predict exact guideline calculations)
- United States v. Dunfee, 821 F.3d 120 (1st Cir.) (in-court admissions carry a strong presumption of verity)
- United States v. Ocasio‑Cancel, 727 F.3d 85 (1st Cir.) (defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled but for error)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (U.S.) (plain‑error review applies to unpreserved Rule 11 claims)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S.) (within‑Guidelines sentence entitled to presumption of reasonableness)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (two‑step review: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Dávila‑González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir.) (use of plea colloquy and PSI as sources for factual summary)
- United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir.) (plain‑error standard explained)