United States v. Soto
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22536
10th Cir.2011Background
- Armendariz Soto was indicted on drug conspiracy, money laundering, and firearm offenses; he pled guilty to those charges without a plea agreement.
- Months later, he sought to withdraw the guilty plea, claiming it was not knowing or voluntary due to promises by his then-attorney regarding a 15-year sentence.
- During the plea colloquy, the court asked if he understood the plea carried no guarantee of a specific sentence; he said yes.
- His attorney testified he never promised any sentence and advised him to tell the truth; the district court found Armendariz Soto intentionally lied, not merely erred.
- The district court denied withdrawal, sentenced Armendariz Soto, and enhanced for obstruction of justice while denying acceptance of responsibility, yielding a 420-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviews the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and clarifies the standard when withdrawal relies on intentional falsehoods and the interplay with §3C1.1 and §3E1.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying withdrawal | Armendariz Soto argues plea was not knowing due to lies | Armendariz Soto contends he relied on attorney misrepresentations | No; denial proper where withdrawal rests on an intentional lie under oath |
| Whether the obstruction of justice enhancement was justified | Armendariz Soto asserts no willful obstruction | Argument hinges on lies under oath during plea | Yes; intentional lie under oath supports §3C1.1 enhancement |
| Whether denial of acceptance of responsibility was proper | Armendariz Soto claims he accepted responsibility by not challenging conduct | Obstruction evidence demonstrates lack of acceptance | Yes; enhancement precludes reduction under §3E1.1 in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gordon, 4 F.3d 1567 (10th Cir. 1993) (district court abuse of discretion in plea withdrawals depends on fairness and justice factors)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (clear error standard for district court factual findings)
- United States v. Tom, 494 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2007) (acceptance of responsibility is a factual determination reviewable for clear error)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
- United States v. Ruiz-Terrazas, 477 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (within-guidelines sentence carries rebuttable presumption of reasonableness)