659 F. App'x 32
2d Cir.2016Background
- Marcos Alonso Zea pleaded guilty to attempted provision of material support to a foreign terrorist organization (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) and obstruction/attempted obstruction of an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)).
- He admitted attempting to travel to Yemen to join Ansar al-Sharia (AQAP) and funding a co-conspirator; he also asked a friend to erase his hard drives while under investigation.
- The district court sentenced Zea to consecutive terms totaling 300 months (180 + 120 months).
- Zea appealed, arguing (1) Rule 11(b)(1) defects in his plea colloquy rendered his pleas unknowing and involuntary, and (2) if the appellate waiver is unenforceable, his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- The government and court treated alleged Rule 11 omissions under plain-error review because Zea made no district-court objection.
- The district-court plea agreement included an appellate waiver barring appeals of conviction or sentence if the sentence was 300 months or less; the court imposed exactly 300 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11(b)(1) omissions in the plea colloquy require vacatur of guilty pleas | The government contended any omissions were harmless and the plea was knowing | Zea argued the court failed to explain rights to testify, compulsory process, counsel at every stage, and appellate/collateral-attack waivers, so his pleas were not knowing | Affirmed: Even assuming plain error, Zea failed to show a reasonable probability he would not have pled but for any omissions; pleas stand |
| Whether appellate-waiver bars challenge to sentence | Government: waiver was valid and bars sentencing challenge because sentence ≤ 300 months | Zea: waiver unenforceable, so sentence should be reviewed as procedurally and substantively unreasonable | Dismissed: Waiver is enforceable and bars appeal of sentence because the imposed term was 300 months |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Torrellas, 455 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006) (plain-error review for unpreserved Rule 11 challenges; defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled)
- United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996) (exercise of supervisory authority over district courts and bar conduct)
- United States v. Pattee, 820 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 2016) (strict adherence to Rule 11; harmlessness standard for Rule 11 errors)