United States v. Servando Alvarado-Casas
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9696
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Alvarado-Casas pled guilty to conspiracy to transport unlawful aliens under a plea agreement that dismissed other counts and included a sentence-appeal waiver.
- At rearraignment the district court advised on penalties and that withdrawal of the plea would be limited; the government provided a factual basis tying Alvarado-Casas to the operation.
- At sentencing the district court adopted the PSR with a Guidelines range of 188–235 months; the defense objected to a double-counting adjustment.
- In 2008, Alvarado-Casas filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance for failure to appeal; a later out-of-time direct appeal was permitted and counsel appointed.
- On appeal, Alvarado-Casas challenges (a) the factual basis for the plea, (b) Rule 11 voluntariness and sentencing-advisement errors, and (c) double counting of minor-related adjustments; the government relies on an appeal waiver to bar some challenges.
- The court affirms, concluding any district court error was not plain and the sentencing-waiver bars the challenge to sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea had an adequate factual basis under Rule 11(b)(3). | Alvarado-Casas contends the factual basis shows the driver, not he, caused the injury. | United States argues proximate or other causation suffices; the government’s statement is enough. | No plain error; the factual basis interpretation not compelled by statute or precedent. |
| Whether the guilty plea was involuntary due to Rule 11 misadvisement. | Alvarado-Casas argues misadvice re nature of offense, maximum penalty, and appeal waiver. | Government maintains any error was not plain and did not undermine voluntariness. | Not plain error; overall voluntariness not shown to be affected. |
| Whether misadvisement of the statutory maximum affected plea decision. | Believes 10-year misadvisement misled him about exposure. | PSR corrected exposure; other factors favored the plea. | Error; but not enough to show a reasonable likelihood of different plea absent the error. |
| Whether double counting for minor transportation and use of a minor is impermissible. | Argues two separate minor-related adjustments double-count the same factor. | Appeal waiver governs challenges to the sentence. | Appeal waiver bars challenge; no relief on double-counting claim. |
| Whether the appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary to bar challenges to sentence. | Waiver includes right to contest sentence but needs independent review. | Record shows she read and understood the agreement; waiver valid. | Waiver valid and broad enough to bar the sentencing challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (Rule 11 factual-basis requirement; standards for knowing, voluntary plea)
- United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2001) (factual basis sufficiency in guilty pleas (en banc))
- United States v. Williams, 449 F.3d 635 (5th Cir. 2006) (serious bodily injury aggravator elements and proof)
- Apprendi v. United States, 530 U.S. 460 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (economic and sentencing enhancements tied to elements proven beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725 (5th Cir. 2002) (authority to review factual-basis challenges despite waiver)
- United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2010) (novel or unsettled factual-basis interpretations not plain error)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard in factual-basis review; reasonable dispute may preclude plain error)
- Portillo v. United States, 18 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 1994) (record shows defendant understood plea agreement; waiver remains binding)
- Bond v. United States, 414 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2005) (appeal waiver enforceability where knowing and voluntary)