United States v. Alan Peter Quin

Amеrica, UNITED Appellee, STATES of John M. Garcia with whom Elisa Bobonis QUIN, Defendant,

Alan Peter Appellant. Lang and John M. Offices, Garcia Law No. 87-1349. P.R., Hato Rey, brief, were on for defend- ant, appellant. Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Vazquez, Warren Asst. Atty., whom Daniel F. Lopez Romo, U.S. Atty., Sept. 1987. P.R., Hato Rey, brief, onwas appellee. Decided Jan. COFFIN,

Before Circuit Judge,

ALDRICH, Senior Judge, Circuit LAGUEUX,* District Judge. ALDRICH, BAILEY Senior Circuit Judge. This 28 U.S.C. presents motion some questions, troublesome not the least of which are precisely what occurred and what is claimed. The court only denied but imposed $2,000 sanction upon counsel, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. for “an unreasonable and vexatious twist- ing of procedure dis- [that was] turbing and frivolous.” The facts were these. Burke, One as master, owner and Quin defendant crew, were complemеnt of an American vessel seized the Coast off Guard Virgin Islands and found to 41,000 contain pounds of marijuana. Following indict- both, ment of defendants filed a motion to suppress. Prior to testimony hearing thereon, the following occurred in open court, MR. Honor, WASHOR: Your the De- Quin

fendant is prepared to waive his right jury ato trial. In addition to which Defendant prepared to pro- ceed with a Motion to Suppress at the conclusion of the Motion Suppress the event that the Court is so inclined to deny suppression hearing and rule favorably for Quin is ‍‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍prepared to stipulate that testimony adduced at the suppression hearing along constitute with a few addi- stipulations tional jurisdictional [of facts] agreed had been upon between Counsel, that said mate- * Islаnd, Of the District of sitting Rhode by desig- nation. any impart regarding to advise so that this ure the the entire trial

rial constitute consequences indirect guilt or innocence of direct and of the the can rule Court stipulation plaintiff left without Quin. the the depor- he to knowledge subject that was this, ex- Following judge having the upon his conviction. tation based that this the defendants plained to de- supрress Because the motion to was they jury, and himself for the substitute nied, petitioner’s stipulate to decision to a agreement, defendants having expressed guilty to a bench-trial was tantamount terms, was, of a waiver what executed plea petitioner by was virtue of that 23(a). Fed.R.Crim.P. pursuant to jury, stipulation opportunity the denied an to not of trial. Manifestly, was a waiver this spe- dеfend himself on the merits of the note, Quin’s had that counsel We charges against him. cific He also there- equiv- lobby, in the stated previously “[I]t’s by subject mandatory pleading guilty found himself to after to the defendant alent deportation. By neglecting apprise Suppress,” an assertion Motion to the by petitioner the of the most basic direct and contradicted then issues now be- inescapable consequences bedevils the collateral that somewhat stipu- of the question, Given the content stipulation petitioner’s fore us. the evidence, that, aas it did seem clear lated petitioner the effective as- counsel denied matter, only possi- one result was practical petitioner counsel to which sistance of suppression if was denied. ble entitled under the Constitution. was program was carried proposed this embracive, When sought While to more out, sup denied the motion to argument thrust of defendant’s is basic guilty. findings press and made jury that he waived and acceded a bench Burke, (D.P.R. F.Supp. 1282 v. 540 States ignorance deportation conse trial in 1982). present only matter appeal the On guilty finding fail quences оf a due of the motion.1 ed was the denial thereof; his him ure of counsel inform Burke, v. 716 affirmed. constitutionally inef that this constituted (1st Cir.1983). F.2d 935 counsel, he now and that is entitled fective Passing depor the fact that to start over. and, although Englishman is an regarded generally context tation this citizen, after hav- to an American married viz., consequence, only, le as a collateral felony ing years three served some irrelevant, outright gally even as to he complaint, further conviction without Gavilan, 761 v. United States plea, guilty deportation pro- found himself faced with United States (5th Cir.1985); 226 F.2d 1251(a)(ll) (1982). ceedings. 8 U.S.C. § Russell, (D.C.Cir.1982); F.2d 35 686 brought present 28 U.S.C. He then Kenton, 531 F.2d 946 (9th Fruchtman alleging, denied, Cir.1976), cert. argues denied ef- that he was Petitioner 178; United States L.Ed.2d his fective assistance (2d Cir.1975); but Santelises, 509 F.2d 703 give in- attorney failed to him the basic States, v. United see Nunez Cordero petitioner’s de- indispensible formation (1st Cir.1976), post, counsel is by a to whether to seek trial cisions as conceive, suggest, nor can we unable a jury. did not realize that Petitioner bearing, relationship, or possible court judgment would be rendered consequences direct a even the most testify his being on without his able finding upon a defend guilty could have being his able own and without behalf choosing jury and a bench ant’s between knowledge present on his defenses based of a here is the likelihood At issue cir- trial. question and the of the activities in finding, consequences. presence the boat. cumstances of his on duty on to be able to imposes petitioner’s ‍‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍fail- Additionally, court without would be rendered partiсular, 1. In there was no contention post. being testify.” See able to judgment defendant “did not realize that are, strictly proceedings Although § civil, criminal, (habeas corpus) § 2254 65 showing, make some minimum inferential high action he took on the seas.” The otherwise, his claim.3 Here allegations second of these falls far short empty the claim on its face. Unit suggesting that defendant was shang- Cf. ed Campbell, haied, States v. preposterous. and the first is Who Cir.1985).4 We could not fault the court’s could believe that on enough a vessel small petition conclusion that insofar as the re to be men, handled two loaded with waiver, palpably lied jury so 41,000 pounds marijuana—which smelled

unreasonable as to warrant censure. even on deck—defendant was not of aware Equally preposterous content. is de- time, At the same defendants are entitled claim fendant’s that while he chose not to representation, and Rule is not in- testify when he faced felony serious sen- tended be in terrorem obstacle. See tences, he would have testified had he Eagle Distributing Corp. Golden v. Bur- known deportation. of Corp., 801 F.2d roughs 1536-37 Cir.1986). With this in mind turn to we The contention that ineffeсtive counsel analogize attempt defendant’s his con- caused defendant to commit a material mis- plea with guilty. Manifestly, duct a of take supports neither materiality nor cau- matter, deportation is a serious and sation. entirely possibil- rational to believe that the We come to a further matter. Nu ity consequence of such a would enter into nez Corderо an outright involved plea of thinking considering defendant’s when guilty. Prior to sentence the defendant plead. whether to While we held in Nunez deportation learned of the consequence, Cordero, ante, duty that the court had no sought plea. withdraw his The inquire deportation or inform as to con- recognized court refused. We the court’s sequences 11(c) under Fed.R.Crim.P. before discretion, having supported its failure accepting guilty plea, recognized we favor, to exercise it in defendant’s even a court ignorance consider such though, timetable, because of the assessing just” “fair reason for with- government prejudiced. was not How drawal. The court in Government Vir- of here, government where the would be gin Islands Pamphile, F.Supp. heavily prejudiced, possibly could it (D.V.I.1985), correctly us saying read thought that we light would reverse? In there could be a difference between the Cordero, of Nunez of which counsel was duty court, of the duty and the of effective aware, failure was foreordained and the difficulty, counsel. The is that appeal totally frivolous, was except as to we consider equating defendant’s his re- thе sanction. fraining from testifying guilty plea with a gross exaggeration. prepared ap- The While we have no Fed.R.Civ.P. we pendix does not foregone show what expectations have similar of counsel. Cf. testimony been, would have but we find a Vignes Department Des Transporta- statement in the F.A.A., record. The most materi- (Fed.Cir.1986); part al is that defendant “had Kelly States, no knowl- (1st v. United 789 F.2d 94 edgе cargo,” as to the Cir.1986); contents Condado Home Care Program, that, “as a crew member had con- Cooperativa Inc. v. Seguros Vida, de [he] de trol ship over the (1st and thus could not Cir.1985); 775 F.2d 457 Johnson v. vent captain taking Align Bacon, Inc., the vessel from (1st & equally applicable. Rules are agree 4. While dowe with the district court’s Governing Proceedings Rules Section 2255 regarding Campbеll counsel's citation of as an the United States District Courts. misconduct—good element deed, lawyering, in- court, duty often to the calls for disclos- Signature attorney pleading on motion or ing decisions—citing unfavorable unfavorable constitutes a “is certificate that it warranted scarcely obligations matter imposed satisfies the good argument existed law or a faith for the by the rule. extension, modification, existing or reversal of law_” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. refrain, however, in a civil matter Cir.1984). from as- olous roadblock should not good standard of faith called appeal, be held for a frivolous but sessing penalties rule. He has obtained an civil permit it not unfair we believe delay ‍‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍proceedings by in civil undeserved clearly unsupportable conduct continuеd totally conduct. That should unwarranted consequences sympathy for stifle even enough to Rule 11. to look court. him the district imposed on Finally, cannot leave this case with- we concurring respect to our A word commenting out counsel. custody, Assuming that the basic brother. payment The ordered under Rule sanction juris initial essential for requirement, and go 11 in this to the clerk diction, existed when court, opponent. say We do not to the commenced,5 moot the case did not become party heard should never be other ceased, alive custody but remained when sanction, of such a but counsel upon the judgment’s effect who so should consider what is their do nature, of a civil purely collateral matter eye beholding own what be in beforе deportation proceedings. namely Carafas Matthew 7:3. In addition their brother’s. 1556, LaVallee, 234, v. 391 U.S. S.Ct. charging merely the motion was an to that (1968).6 not mean But this L.Ed.2d 554 did attempt delay deportation proceed- the to Quin pursuing traditional that it takes longer and that “the ings, the for merit in our There be much relief. conclude, legal matters to the criminal ordinary that in apprehension the brоther’s longer deportation proceed- it for the takes genu is case, penal consequence where prejudice and the more ings to be initiated issue, personal fear counsel’s at inely government has to en- the United States restrict free impermissably dure,” government (emphasis supplied), While, Writ. as he to the Great recourse say prop- defendant’s сounsel concedes, may look to the Crimi pro- he failed erly because to sanctioned Rules, agree we quite nal or the Civil Rules expeditious by “in manner” ceed if applied not be that latter should the marking motion for trial. “Counsel his inequitable in the inconsistent or “would be legal representing party any in is action corpus.” framework of habeas overall a re- еxpected proceed to with his case in 152, Frady, 166- United States saying sponsible Who is manner....” 1584, 15, 15, 68 n. n. 102 S.Ct. 1593-94 original receipt of defendant’s this? After (1982). Here, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 ordered him to file mem- motion the court Quin seeking by the to achieve is § days, within 20 orandum in effect, purely prevention the petition a civil respond within to ordered the deportation. duly filed days thereafter. seeking objective the If werе same 19, respond- February Instead of on 1986. attacking judicata of a the res effect nothing ing, government did until the the sug- proceeding, no one prior civil would it on a new order court entered gest held to the that counsel should 23, eight months. a matter October of Rule 11. counsel’s requirements Should saga of movant’s Now the comes less the obligations delay, indignantly because voiced unconscionable brought who, on threat of his proceeding which if he government counsel believed (an criminal, charge improperly delay habe- motivated deportation was to us four times in oral provided the means assertion made corpus mechanical his argument), indisputably violated both attacking judgment? see his seeking inject duty a friv- client terminate why reason diversity record, (any the cessation but not more than 5. —a matter not clear on the cases) raised pursued. need not be case to become diversity or for the moot, consequences cast its of civil discussion involved, except, of light no course, the core values on 6. While holds that the civil conse- Carafas liberty recognize short of their status quences conviction are sufficient meaning. in the traditional jurisdiction attaching originally vent fail. obligation to the court to respond its The federal corpus order. Government counsel provided would do well by 28 U.S.C. 2255 is § “a further ponder. step in the criminal petitioner which is sentenced.” United States v. Frady, Affirmed. 152, 456 U.S. 6, 182-83 & n. 1584, 102 S.Ct. 6, 1601-02 & n. 816 (1982) L.Ed.2d COFFIN, Judge, Circuit concurring in (Brennan, J., dissenting) (quotations and part dissenting part. omitted). citations not, It therefore, au agree While I with the Court’s conclusion tomatically subject to the rules of either prompt and efficacious remedy for whatev- proceed in any lawful manner not inconsist- ing Secretary “[I]ts doms. in the restraints O’Brien, habeas corpus dating ing, in the context of a § dure, imposed sanctions upon a defendant Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce- haustively ly dissеnt fendant’s Rooted in “immemorial antiquity” pre- 2254"or 28 U.S.C. After researching which a circuit court whether 822, 828, function has the Magna Fay face district court section 2255 ^[1923] upon Ias brought pursuant of illegitimate has Noia, could, State our most L.Ed.2d 837 A.C. Carta, preserved sanctions question. 372 U.S. been to I have found no case for properly 603, the Great Writ of matically apply in section has, Home question corpus precious human liberty governmental (1963) 391, I respectful- pursuant to 28 U.S.C. provide Affairs denied de- proceed- ‍‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍400, 83 (H.L.)). as ex- (quot- free- [considering a motion under prescribed by vides that corpus proceedings under section ris v. 1090 (1971)(rules of civil procedure do not auto Schlanger 4, 91 N.Y.1961) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 does not apply to section 2255 proceedings). See also van v. ble tо section 2255 proceedings) with Sulli (6th Cir.1963)(Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 Schiebelhut United civil or 15, 102 S.Ct. at 1593-94 Rule 12 of the rules governing habeas Court); 509, (same); 983, Nelson, “[i]f Sassoon v. Seamans, these States, Dillard v. 394 U.S. no procedure. 997 n. procedure Cir.1986). rules, Cir.1977), Compare 198 F.Supp. 624 States, 401 U.S. at 2254 n. 15. the district court Blackburn, 298, 28 L.Ed.2d 251 Id. at 166-68 n. is specifically § 2255] cases); held 89 S.Ct. at States, (opinion applica 490 n. Har (S.D. pro- 780 er society deems to be intolerable re- rules, ent with these or applicable stat- Noia, straints.” Fay v. 401-02, U.S. at ute, and may apply the Federal Rules of 83 S.Ct. at 838-29. For courts, federal Criminal Procedure or the Federal Rules of “there is higher duty ‍‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍ than to maintain it Procedure, whichever it deems most unimpaired.” 400, Id. at 83 S.Ct. at 828 appropriate, to motions filed under these (quotations and omitted). citations rules.” 28 U.S.C. 2255 Rule 12 (empha- § Given the added). role of sis the Great through- Supreme Writ The Court has inter- preted out our history, rule, and long before, even we the Advisory Commit- should be tee Note impose loath to procedural thereto, reference rules mean that considering impede prisoner’s motion, section 2255 effort a dis- seek trict court may that remedy. apply a Nelson, See rule of Harris v. civil or procedure 286, 291, long so 1082, applica- 89 S.Ct. tion such a (1969)(“The L.Ed.2d 281 rule would not be very nature of “inconsist- ent inequitable writ in the demands that it be overall frame- administered with work” of corpus. habeas initiative and flexibility States v. essential to in- Frady, 456 U.S. at sure 167-68 n. miscarriages 102 S.Ct. justice within its at 1594 n. 15. reach are corrected.”). surfaced and should consider such only action if it is my view, In imposition of sanctions clearly authorized indispensablе to pre- under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 upon a defendant or vent frivolous litigation. In my view nei- his counsel in the context of a section 2255 ther condition has been met. proceeding would be inconsistent with the I If disagree. habeas relief.” traditional relief. corpus habeas reality of purpose sufficiently seri- effects are being the the collateral corpus opportunity, The habеas jurisdic- continuing habeas to a crimi- ous to available device procedural last liberty is of suffi- liberty, threat asserting a claim to then the defendant nal impose not to ought we presses moment that to one who cient lost be should not authority. attempts to frivolous weight of on even even claim liberty. overwhelm- Indeed, that the serve that the fact given denied, it are mоtions ing bulk of many could doubted that

cannot imagine I cannot “frivolous.” deemed chilling putative way more effective assess- cases than the ultimate- for cases fees ment of substantial And merit.1 to be without ly determined significant deci- our most many of yet how imagina- intrepid and from sions resulted Plaintiff, KNIGHT, Appellant, Norman against precedent? laboring tive helpless. are courts thаt district is not It procedures utilize should can and

They al., MILLS, etc., et Mark J. for dis- rules the habeas under available Defendants, Appellees. motions frivolous missing patently No. 87-1156. E.g. 28 U.S.C. summary fashion. from appears 4(b) (“If plainly it Rule Appeals, Court exhib- any annexed face of the First Circuit. in the proceedings prior and the its to relief ... entitled movant Sept. Heard its sum- make an order shall judge 29, 1987. Dec. Decided (“If ap- 8(a) dismissal); id. mary is not hearing evidentiary that an pears disposi- shall make such judge

required, the dictates.”); see justice motion tion of the Rule 4. 28 U.S.C. also compel- to me seem These considerations I therefore, surprised that am, not ling. I court a federal in which no case have found the use considered, approved, let alone has in the context 11 sanсtions of Civil Rule most reluctant I am proceedings. unprece- apparently upon that to embark of action. course dented Quin’s recognizing that although Finally, directly stemming deportation, threatened conviction, sufficient is of his criminal from jurisdic- effect warrant collateral may suggests that “pursuing not he imposed a district after situations, habeas motions filed identical of some 1. I can conceive underlying against the merits had decided imposition fee sanctions court where the situations, detrimental, In these petitioner. chill- against have counsel ing such issue One to mind. examples Two come 11 sanctions imposition of Rule effect. defense pur- in which a habeas would be inconsistent counsel would poses intentionally Another corpus. falsified facts. remedy underlying repeatedly situation be a where

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Alan Peter Quin

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Jan 8, 1988

Citation: 836 F.2d 654

Docket Number: 87-1349

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.