United States v. Garay-Sierra
832 F.3d 64
1st Cir.
2016
Check Treatment
Docket

UNITED STATES оf America, Appellee, v. Wilfredo GARAY-SIERRA, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 15-1418

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

August 5, 2016

a[t] that procedural juncture.”

. While that observation alone provided valid grounds for the district court to deny extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b), we further observe that this circuit does not understand Rule 60(b)(1)‘s reference to “mistake” to include a district court‘s mistaken ruling on a point оf law. See
;
(rejecting an interpretation of Rule 60(b)(1) that would cause it to overlap with a movant‘s ability to correct legal error through a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration).

Finding no merit in any of Fontanillas‘s underdeveloped claims under Rule 60,13 we affirm the district court‘s rejection of those claims.

III. Conclusion

Finding that Fontanillas has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in holding her to the local rules’ ordinary page limits, in awarding attorneys’ fees to the prevailing defendants, or in rejecting her motions to set aside the summary judgment order and the fees award, we affirm. Costs to defendants.

Kendys Pimentel Soto, San Juan, PR, and Kendys Pimentel Soto Lаw Office on brief for appellant.

Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy Attorney General, Amanda B. Harris, Attorney, Criminal Division, Appellate Section, United States Department of Justice, Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez, United States Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and Kelly Zenon-Matos, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

Before TORRUELLA, SELYA, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

Stage Setting

A grand jury indicted Wilfredo Garay-Sierra (Garay) for carjacking a “Mitsubishi Nativa,” with intent to cause death and serious bodily harm, see 18 U.S.C. § 2119(2), and carrying and brandishing a firearm ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍during a crime of violence, see id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Pursuant to a binding plea agreement, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), Garay pled guilty to carjacking and to possessing—but not brandishing—the firearm.1

In projecting Garay‘s total offense level, the parties (among other things) agreed to a series of enhancements—including, pertinently, a 4-level enhancement because a victim of the carjacking suffered “serious bodily injury.” See USSG § 2B3.1(b)(3)(B).2 The parties did not agree on a particular guideline sentencing range for the carjaсking count. But they did agree that Garay would recommend a 40-month prison sentence, and that the government would recommend a sentence within the to-be-calculated sentencing range. Because Garay accepted responsibility fоr possessing a firearm, the parties also agreed to recommend the mandatory-minimum sentence of 60 months in prison—the mandatory-minimum sentence for brandishing a firearm is 84 months, by the way. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii). The parties also agreed that the sentences had to run consecutively. And Garay agreed to waive his right to appeal if the judge “accept[ed]” the agreement and “sentence[d] him according to its terms, conditions, and recommendations.”

The probation office‘s PSR recommended (аmong other things) that Garay get the 4-level enhancement for the carjacking count, noting that “the victims suffered serious bodily injury.” Skipping over details not relevant to the issues on appeal, we note that the PSR then suggested that the judge use a 70-87 month sentеncing range for this count. The PSR also incorrectly indicated that 84 months—section 924(c)‘s mandatory minimum for brandishing—applied. Neither party objected to the PSR.

At the sentencing hearing—and consistent with the plea agreement—Garay‘s counsel asked the judge for a 40-month prison term on the carjacking count, saying his client‘s youth, being a father, struggles with drug addiction and depression, and below-average IQ justified a downwardly-variant sentence. Living up to the terms of the agreement, the government asked for а sentence within the range for that count. And both Garay and the government asked for the 60-month mandatory minimum for the firearm crime.

After listening to the parties’ sentencing pitches, the judge accepted the PSR‘s calculations for the counts—i.e., the judge adopted the PSR‘s 70-87 month sentencing range for the carjacking count and the mandatory minimum of 84 months for the firearm count. The judge then ran through the relevant sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Garay‘s characteristics and history (his youth, drug addiction, limited intellectual capacity, bouts with depression, etc.), the seriousness of the offense (noting, for example, that an accomplice of Garay had sexually assaulted one of the carjacked victims in Garay‘s presence), plus the nеed to deter criminal conduct, protect the public, promote respect for the law, and deliver just punishment. And when all was said and done, the judge imposed a within-guidelines prison sentence of 70 months for the carjacking crime, and a consecutive 84-month prison sentence for the firearm crime.

From this 154-month sentence, Garay appeals. He first argues that the appeal waiver provision in his plea agreement is not enforceable, noting for example that the judgе‘s sentence for the firearm offense (84 months) differed from what the parties recommended in the agreement (60 months). He then argues that the 70-month prison stint for the carjacking offense is procedurally unreasonable—first, because the judge wrongly concluded that the serious-bodily-injury enhancement applied and second, because the judge neither adequately considered factors favoring a lower sentence nor satisfactorily explained the reasons for the sentence. And last he argues that because he pled guilty to possessing a firearm rather than brandishing a firearm, the judge botched matters by sentencing him for brandishing a firearm (again, brandishing carries a higher mandatory minimum than possessing).

For its part, the government agreеs with Garay that, when it comes to the firearm count, the judge reversibly erred in imposing a sentence for brandishing a gun. And when it comes to the carjacking count, the government says, we should enforce the waiver-of-appeal ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍clause because the sentence imposed by the judge jibed with the parties’ recommendation—but even if it did not, the government adds, the judge erred neither in applying the serious-bodily-injury enhancement nor in explaining the sentence‘s length.

Garay argues in reply that beсause the judge did not follow “all” of the plea agreement‘s terms (because the judge chose a sentence for the firearm count that exceeded the parties’ recommendation), “the waiver of appeal is inappliсable in toto.” And to the extent there is any ambiguity about the way in which the appeal-waiver clause works, he says that we should interpret the provision to let “the appeal ... proceed.”

Waiver

We opt not to referee the apрeal-waiver dust-up: because we can easily deal with Garay‘s sentencing-error claims, we will assume “[f]or ease of analysis” that the appeal-waiver proviso “does not bar the maintenance of this appeal.” See

; see also
.

Carjacking Sentence

As the рarties acknowledge, we must review Garay‘s procedural-reasonableness claims for plain error (rather than for abuse of discretion), because he did not raise them below. So Garay “must show (1) error, (2) plainness, (3) prejudice, and (4) an outcome that is a miscarriage of justice or akin to it,”

—a difficult-to-meet standard that “is not appellant friendly,”
.

Enhancement

We start with Garay‘s claim that the judge stumbled by enhancing his carjacking sentence under the serious-bodily-injury enhancement. See USSG § 2B3.1(b)(3)(B). This enhancement applies if “any victim sustained ... Serious Bodily Injury.” Id. Serious bodily injury “occur[s] if the offense involved conduct constituting criminal sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2242 or any similar offense under state law.” USSG § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(L).3 That is our case. According to

the unobjected-to facts in the PSR, Garay drove the car around while a carjacking cohort—referred to as “Minor 1“—sat in the back seat with one of the carjacked victims, put his fingers in her vagina, and forced her to perform oral sex on him (him being Minor 1). Given this concatenation of circumstances, we find no plain error in the judge‘s decision to apply this enhancement.

Explanation

Garay argues for the first time on appeal that the judge inadequately explained the thinking behind the carjacking sentence and insufficiently considered ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍his “personal characteristics and his participation in the offense,” factors, he says, that justified a lighter sentence. We do not buy it.

[4, 5] It perhaps goes without saying—though we say it anyway—that sentencers must consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors. But they “need not give each factor equal billing.”

. And when it comes to еxplaining the reasons for a sentence, “brevity” must not be mistaken for “inattention“—especially so when, as here, the sentence falls within guideline range.
(quoting
).

Shifting from the general to the specific, we repeat what Garay‘s judge did: As we said earlier, the judge discussed Garay‘s characteristics and history—e.g., his young age, fatherhood status, battles with drug addiction and depression, and intellectual deficiencies, the very factors that Garay said called for a variant sentence. The judge also considered the seriousness of the offense—mentioning (among other things) how one of Garay‘s carjacking collaborators had sexually attacked a female victim in Garay‘s presence. And the judge emphasized that any sentence impоsed had to advance certain purposes, like respect for the law, just punishment, deterrence, and protection of the public. Critically too, any holes in the judge‘s reasoning—and we don‘t see any, frankly—can be plugged by “comparing what was argued by the parties or contained in the [PSR] with what the judge did.”

(quoting
); cf.
. Given what we have said, this facet of Garay‘s procedural-reasonableness claim is a nonstarter too.

Still hoping to persuade us otherwise, Garay argues that the fact that he did not attack anyone should have counted in his favor. The argument implies that he was an innocent bystander in all this. But his chauffeuring Minor 1 around while Minor 1 sexually abused the female victim in the backseat, for example, does not put Garay in thе innocent-bystander category.

As before, we find no procedural error—certainly no plain procedural error.4

Firearm Sentence

Section 924(c)(1)(A) clearly says that a conviction for possessing a firearm “during and in relation to any crime of violence” triggers a 60-month mandatory minimum prison sentence, while a conviction for brandishing a firearm triggers an 84-month mandatory minimum prison term. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii). The indictment, remember, charged Garay with carrying and brandishing a firearm. But Garay pled guilty only to possessing a firearm. And the рarties jointly recommended that the judge impose a 60-month sentence for the firearm count. Nevertheless, ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍and without a peep of protest from the parties, the judge concluded at sentencing that “[b]ecause the weapon was brandished, the minimum term of imprisonment for [the firearm count] is 84 months.” Given controlling caselaw, see, e.g.,

, the judge plainly erred in this instance.

Wrap Up

For the reasons recorded above, we affirm Garay‘s sentence on the carjacking count, vacate his sentence on the firearm count, and remand for resentencing.5

Notes

1
Because Garay pled guilty, we pull the background info from the рlea agreement, the unchallenged parts of the presentence report (“PSR“), and the transcripts from the relevant court hearings. See, e.g.,
.
2
We refer to the November 2014 edition of the sentencing guidelines, the version in effect at the timе of sentencing. See
.
3
Broadly speaking, § 2241 criminalizes aggravated sexual abuse, and § 2242 criminalizes sexual abuse—both of which require causing another to engage in a sexual act. The key elements of § 2241 are “knowingly caus[ing] another person to engage in a sexual act ... by threatening or placing that оther person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempt[ing] to do so.” § 2241(a)(2). And the key elements of § 2242 are “knowingly ... caus[ing] another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in feаr (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping) ... or attempt[ing] to do so.” § 2242(1).
4
To the extent Garay suggests 70 months is substantively unreasonable—in a single, unilluminating sentence, hе hints that the judge may have created a sentencing disparity between him and “other participants in the offense“—the suggestion is waived by “perfunctory” treatment.
.
5
The judgment on appeal says that Garay pled guilty to brandishing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). On remand, the judge should amend the judgment to reflect that ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‍Garay pled guilty to possessing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
13
Fontanillas makes no argument that the district court improperly rejected her additional request for relief under the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6), see
, so we deem that request abandoned.
Read the detailed case summary