United States v. Torres-Vazquez
731 F.3d 41
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Indictment: Edgardo Torres-Vázquez was indicted in D. P.R. for conspiracy to launder monetary instruments (18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(1)(A)(i)); he pleaded guilty.
- Plea Agreement: Agreement contained a factual statement the defendant affirmed as “accurate in every respect” and a stipulation that $1,000,000–$2,500,000 was laundered.
- Sentencing Recommendation: Parties agreed adjusted offense level 27 (including a 16‑level enhancement for amount), Criminal History I, and jointly recommended the bottom of the Guideline range (70 months); waiver-of-appeal clause included.
- Factual Record: Record shows travel to Panama and Miami meetings about transporting money for drug purchases, phone coordination with a DEA confidential source (CS), and seizure of $1,664,044 during a traffic stop; defendant admitted funds were drug proceeds.
- Procedure on Appeal: Defendant sought to vacate plea for lack of factual basis and separately challenged the 16‑level enhancement; appeal reviewed for plain error as the insufficiency claim was not raised below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of factual basis for guilty plea | Gov't: Record (plea colloquy, Agreement, PSI) supplies a rational basis for the plea | Torres: Record shows only money transport; transportation alone insufficient to prove an attempted financial transaction or that funds derived from specified unlawful activity | Affirmed — plea has adequate factual basis; admissions + circumstances suffice; plain‑error standard not met |
| 16‑level sentencing enhancement for amount (drug proceeds) | Gov't: Stipulation in Agreement and defendant admissions establish amount and illicit provenance; no further proof required | Torres: Government failed to independently prove unlawful provenance piece‑by‑piece | Affirmed — stipulation and admissions bind defendant and remove need for independent proof; enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos‑Mejía v. United States, 721 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.) (Rule 11 inquiry requires only a rational basis for guilt)
- Dominguez‑Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (failure to raise plea defects below opens record on appeal)
- Jimenez v. United States, 498 F.3d 82 (1st Cir.) (Rule 11 not designed to prove guilt beyond doubt; admissions and prosecution proffer suffice)
- Zorrilla v. United States, 982 F.2d 28 (1st Cir.) (PSI report is proof of its recited facts absent timely objection)
- Silva v. United States, 554 F.3d 13 (1st Cir.) (stipulations accepted by the district court bind parties and obviate independent proof)