united states v. figueroa-ocasio, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Figueroa-Ocasio, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/31

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1965

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

DAVI D FI GUEROA- OCASI O,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J os Ant oni o Fust , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Tor r uel l a, Kayat t a and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Cat hr yn A. Neaves, on br i ef f or appel l ant .Franci sco A. Besosa- Mar t nez, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es

At t or ney, wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, and Nel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,Chi ef , Appel l at e Di vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Oct ober 16, 2015


2/31

- 2 -

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. The di st r i ct cour t i n t hi s case

accept ed t he def endant ' s st r ai ght pl ea of gui l t y t o f i r ear ms

char ges wi t hout t aki ng al l t he st eps necessary to det er mi ni ng t hat

t he pl ea was ent er ed i nt el l i gent l y and knowi ngl y. The di st r i ct

cour t al so empl oyed an er r oneous i l l ust r at i on of t he r equi si t e

mens r ea i n or der t o def use t he def endant ' s suggest i on t hat he

l acked t he knowl edge needed t o support a convi ct i on, t hereby

l eavi ng us wi t h a r ecord i n whi ch i t appear s t hat a per son pl eaded

gui l t y because he was mi si nf ormed about t he el ement s of t he cr i me.

Fi nal l y, t he di st r i ct cour t al so commi t t ed pr ocedur al er r or at

sent enci ng by i ncor r ect l y cal cul at i ng t he appl i cabl e sent enci ng

gui del i ne r ange. We t her ef or e vacat e t he convi ct i on and t he

sent ence and r emand f or pr oper consi derat i on of t he pr oposed pl ea

and such f ur t her pr oceedi ngs as ar e t hen cal l ed f or .

I. Background

Davi d Fi guer oa- Ocasi o ( "Fi guer oa") and t hr ee ot her s wer e

char ged i n a f our - count i ndi ct ment al l egi ng var i ous gun of f enses-

- namel y, vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) ( pr ohi bi t ed per son i n

possessi on of a f i r ear m) ; 922( j ) ( possessi on of a st ol en

f i r ear m) ; 922( o) ( possessi on of a machi ne gun) ; and

922( q) ( 2) ( A) ( possessi on of a f i r ear m i n a school zone) . The

char ges ar ose f r om a t r af f i c st op t hat occur r ed at 2: 20 a. m. on

J anuar y 9, 2012, i n San J uan, Puer t o Ri co. At t he t i me of t he


3/31

- 3 -

st op, Fi guer oa was seat ed as a passenger behi nd t he dr i ver of t he

vehi cl e. The r ecor d does not i ndi cat e who owned t he vehi cl e.

Pol i ce f ound i nsi de t he vehi cl e t hr ee f i r ear ms, al l Gl ock pi st ol s-

- t wo dur i ng t he t r af f i c st op and one l at er , dur i ng an i nvent or y at

t he muni ci pal pol i ce pr eci nct . 1 I t i s not cl ear wher e t he pol i ce

f ound t he f i r st f i r ear m, l at er det er mi ned t o have been st ol en,

al t hough the recor d suggest s i t may have been st ashed between the

vehi cl e' s cent er consol e and t he f r ont seat . 2 The second f i r ear m

was f ound somewher e " i n t he f l oor of t he car . " The r ecor d pr ovi des

no evi dence as t o wher e i n t he vehi cl e the pol i ce f ound t he thi r d

f i r ear m, whi ch had been adapt ed t o f i r e i n f ul l y aut omat i c mode.

None of t he f i r ear ms were f ound on t he persons of any of t he

def endant s. There was no evi dence as t o who owned t he f i r ear ms.

Al t hough t he r ecor d st at es t hat t he aut hor i t i es conduct i ng t he

sear ch asked whether any of t he def endant s possessed f i r ear ms

l i censes, t he r ecord does not i ndi cat e how t he def endant s answer ed.

Fi guer oa was char ged wi t h possessi on of al l t hr ee

f i r ear ms i n count 1, t he " f el on i n possessi on" count . The ot her

def endant s wer e char ged wi t h ai di ng and abet t i ng. I n t he ot her

1 The i nvent ory sear ch al so t ur ned up two l oaded magazi nes.

2 The r ecor d st at es t hat a " f i r earm' s magazi ne" was f ound"bet ween t he cent er consol e and t he f r ont passenger ' s seat , " buti t l at er appear s t o r ef er t o t hi s magazi ne as "a Gl ock pi st ol ,Model 27, ser i al number DBW749 . . . r epor t ed st ol en on December26, 2011[ . ] " I t i s not cl ear whet her bot h a magazi ne and a f i r ear mwere f ound between t he cent er consol e and t he f r ont seat .


4/31

- 4 -

t hr ee count s, al l f our def endant s wer e char ged wi t h possessi on of

t he r espect i ve f i r ear ms and wi t h ai di ng and abet t i ng.

II. The Change of Plea Hearing

On Mar ch 1, 2012, Fi gueroa appear ed i n t he di st r i ct cour t

t o ent er a st r ai ght pl ea of gui l t y t o t he i ndi ct ment . 3 The hear i ng

was conduct ed wi t h t he assi st ance of a cour t i nt er pr et er .

The hear i ng commenced unevent f ul l y. Fi guer oa made i t

cl ear , bot h t hr ough counsel and per sonal l y, t hat he want ed t o pl ead

gui l t y. Def ense counsel st at ed t hat hi s cl i ent " expr essed t o us

t hat he woul d pl ead gui l t y r at her t han go t o t r i al . " The di st r i ct

cour t t hen conf i r med wi t h counsel t hat Fi guer oa was " pl eadi ng

gui l t y t o al l t he count s[ , ] " a "[ s] t r ai ght pl ea. " Def ense counsel

conf i r med t hat Fi guer oa was "pl eadi ng gui l t y, per i od. " Next , t he

cour t asked Fi gueroa di r ect l y whether he had "made a consci ous

deci si on t o pl ead gui l t y t o ever y si ngl e count of t he I ndi ct ment .

. . . I s t hat what you want t o do, si r ?" Fi guer oa answer ed,

"Yes. " The cour t asked Fi gueroa whether he was competent t o pl ead,

whether he bel i eved t hat def ense counsel was competent , and whether

he had had ampl e t i me t o di scuss hi s case wi t h counsel . The cour t

3 The ot her def endant s pl eaded gui l t y separ at el y, eachpur suant t o l ar gel y i dent i cal pl ea agr eement s. The of f ense f act sst at ed i n t hese pl ea agr eement s and i n t he subsequent l y f i l edpr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t s ar e i dent i cal .


5/31

- 5 -

di d not di r ect l y ask Fi guer oa whet her he was ent er i ng hi s pl ea

vol unt ar i l y and of hi s own f r ee wi l l .

The di st r i ct cour t went on t o advi se Fi guer oa of cer t ai n

r i ght s " t hat ar e wai ved when [ one] pl ead[ s] gui l t y[ , ] " i ncl udi ng

t he r i ght t o t r i al by j ur y, t he r i ght t o be convi ct ed onl y upon

pr oof beyond a r easonabl e doubt , t he pr esumpt i on of i nnocence, t he

r i ght t o cross- exami nat i on, t he r i ght t o t est i f y, and t he r i ght t o

r emai n si l ent . The cour t f ai l ed t o advi se Fi guer oa of t he "r i ght

t o pl ead not gui l t y, or havi ng al r eady so pl eaded, t o per si st i n

t hat pl ea[ , ] " t he "r i ght t o be r epr esent ed by counsel - - and i f

necessary have t he cour t appoi nt counsel - - at t r i al and at ever y

ot her st age of t he pr oceedi ng[ , ] " and t he r i ght " t o compel t he

at t endance of wi t nesses[ . ] " Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11( b) ( 1) ( B) , ( D) ,

( E) . The cour t concl uded t hi s i ni t i al col l oquy by aski ng, "[ D] o

you st i l l want t o pl ead gui l t y i n t hi s case?" Fi guer oa answer ed,

"Yes. "

The di st r i ct cour t t hen summar i zed t he i ndi ct ment . The

cour t summar i zed count 1 t hus: " [ Y]ou ar e a pr ohi bi t ed per son, a

convi ct ed f el on, and you wer e i n possessi on of a f i r ear m. "

Summar i zi ng count 2, t he cour t st at ed, " [ Y]ou possessed st ol en

f i r ear ms or you ai ded and abet t ed ot her s i n possessi ng st ol en

f i r ear ms. " The cour t t hen descr i bed count 3 as " t he i l l egal

possessi on of a machi ne gun or ai di ng and abet t i ng ot her s i n t he


6/31

- 6 -

possessi on of a machi ne gun. " Counsel i nt er j ect ed, " I t ' s an

aut omat i c gun, " whereupon t he cour t amended i t s expl anat i on of t he

char ge, st at i ng, " I t ' s an aut omat i c gun, not a machi ne gun. " 4

Fi nal l y, t he cour t descr i bed count 4 as char gi ng t hat " f i r ear ms

were possessed i n a school zone or t hat you ai ded and abet t ed

ot her s i n possessi ng f i r ear ms i n a school zone. " The cour t asked

Fi guer oa whet her he under st ood " t hat t hose ar e basi cal l y the

char ges, " al t hough i t di d not ask whet her Fi guer oa under st ood t he

charges t hemsel ves. The cour t di d ask Fi gueroa whether he

underst ood that " t he Government has t o pr ove . . . who you are and

your r el at i onshi p t o t hese f act s al l eged i n t he I ndi ct ment so t hat

we can make an associ at i on between t he f act s al l eged and you. "

Fi gueroa agr eed t hat he underst ood. The cour t al so asked Fi gueroa

whet her he under st ood t hat t he Gover nment had t he bur den of provi ng

t hat al l t he act i ons al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment "wer e ent er ed i nt o

by you knowi ngl y, wi l l f ul l y and unl awf ul l y . . . wi t h a bad pur pose

t o di sobey or di sr egar d t he l aw, and not because of mi st ake,

acci dent , or ot her i nnocent r eason. . . . [ Y] ou wer e doi ng

somet hi ng t hat t he l aw f or bi ds and you knew i t . " Fi guer oa agai n

agr eed t hat he underst ood.

4 Count 3 act ual l y al l eged t hat t he def endant s, "ai di ng andabet t i ng each ot her , di d knowi ngl y and unl awf ul l y possess, amachi negun . . . i n vi ol at i on of [ 18 U. S. C. 922( o) ] . " 18 U. S. C. 922( o) ( 1) makes i t unl awf ul t o t r ansf er or possess a machi negun.


7/31

- 7 -

The di st r i ct cour t t hen r evi ewed i n det ai l t he

Government ' s bur den of pr oof as t o each of t he count s. Wi t h r egard

t o count 2, possessi on of a st ol en f i r ear m, t he f ol l owi ng exchange

occur r ed:

THE COURT: Then anot her - - Count Twowoul d be t hat one of t hose f i r ear ms . . . hadbeen shi pped or t r anspor t ed i n i nt er st at ecommerce knowi ng or havi ng r easonabl e cause t obel i eve t hat t he f i r ear m had been st ol en.

Do you underst and t hat ?

THE DEFENDANT: He says he di dn' t know i twas st ol en. [ 5]

THE COURT: You di d not buy f r oman ar mor ywi t h a l i cense f or exampl e?

[ DEFENSE COUNSEL] : No.

THE DEFENDANT: No, no.

THE COURT: So woul d i t be f ai r t o sayt hat t her e was a possi bi l i t y when you boughti t or wher ever you bought i t or f ound i t or

t ook i t , God knows how i t got t her e, i t coul dhave been st ol en?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

5 I t i s not cl ear f r om t he cont ext t o whom "he" r ef er s; "he"coul d mean ei t her a co- def endant , or Fi guer oa, i f t he i nt er pr et erwas t el l i ng t he cour t what Fi guer oa sai d, i nst ead of t r ansl at i ngFi gueroa' s st atement word- f or - word, as somet i mes happens. Nothi ngi n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat t he ot her def endant s wer e pr esent atFi gueroa' s change of pl ea hear i ng, and there woul d have been nor eason f or t hem t o be t her e, as t hey had change of pl ea hear i ngson di f f er ent days.


8/31

- 8 -

Wi t h r egar d t o count 4, al l egi ng possessi on of a f i r ear m

i n a school zone, t he col l oquy r an as f ol l ows:

THE COURT: Okay. And . . . on t op of

t hat , you and t he ot her s unl awf ul l y possessedi n and [ a] f f ect i ng i nt er st at e commer ce t hef i r ear ms and ammuni t i on that we have beent al ki ng about wi t hi n a di st ance of 1, 000 f eetof t he gr ound of t he Sagrado Cor azon Academyschool . I guess i t ' s i n Sant ur ce?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

[ DEFENSE COUNSEL] : Yes.

THE COURT: A pl ace t hat you had r easont o bel i eve was a school zone.

[ DEFENSE COUNSEL] : The cl i ent accept st hat t hat happened. He sai d i t was acoi nci dence.

THE COURT: But he knew t her e was a schoolt her e? Ever ybody knows t here' s a school ,Sagr ado Cor azon, i n Sant ur ce. Wel l , i t ' scommon knowl edge. You can see t he school f r omt he st r eet .

Do you underst and t hat , si r ?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

The cour t subsequent l y summar i zed t he i ndi ct ment wi t h a

ser i es of conf usi ng quest i ons t hat , as we expl ai n i n par t I V. A. 2

of t hi s opi ni on, el i mi nat ed t he mens r ea el ement f r om t he char ges

and ot herwi se pr oduced meani ngl ess r epl i es i n an exchange t hat was

t ypi cal of an apparent l y rushed and pr o f orma appr oach t o t he

pr oceedi ng:


9/31

- 9 -

THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any doubtabout t he char ges t hat you' r e pl eadi ng gui l t yt o, possessi ng f i r ear ms, bei ng a convi ct edf el on? Possessi ng one of t hose f i r ear ms t hathappened t o be st ol en? Possessi ng one of

t hose f i r ear ms t hat happened t o be anaut omat i c f i r ear m conver t ed or ot her wi se, andi t so happened al l t hese f i r ear ms wer epossessed i n a school zone?

Do you have any doubt about t hat?

THE DEFENDANT: Si .

THE COURT: No doubt ?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: No doubt ? Do you have a doubtor no doubt ? No doubt ?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

The cour t di d not expl ai n ai di ng and abet t i ng l i abi l i t y

t o Fi guer oa.

I nst ead, t he di st r i ct cour t moved on t o sent enci ng,

expl ai ni ng t he possi bl e penal t i es, i ncl udi ng f or f ei t ur e, f i nes,

and super vi sed r el ease, f or t he char ged of f enses, and conf i r mi ng

t hat Fi guer oa under st ood. The cour t al so expl ai ned t hat some of

t he sent ences coul d be consecut i ve and that a sent ence coul d be

i mposed wi t hi n, above, or bel ow t he range cal cul at ed under t he

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes or as det er mi ned by t he cour t , wi t hi n i t s

di scr et i on, accor di ng t o t he sent enci ng st at ut e. Fi guer oa

conf i r med t hat he under st ood.


10/31

- 10 -

The Government t hen prof f er ed t he f act s i t woul d have

of f er ed at t r i al . Ent i r el y absent f r om t he Gover nment ' s pr of f er

was any speci f i c al l egat i on of knowl edge or i nt ent as t o any

el ement of any of t he char ged of f enses. Al so absent f r om t he

Gover nment ' s prof f er was any speci f i c al l egat i on t hat Fi guer oa was

i n possessi on or const r uct i ve possessi on of a f i r ear m at any t i me

or , f or t hat mat t er , t hat he knew or had r easonabl e cause t o know

t her e wer e f i r ear ms i n t he vehi cl e.

Upon compl et i on of t he Gover nment ' s pr of f er , t he

di st r i ct cour t cont i nued i t s exami nat i on of Fi guer oa:

THE COURT: Do you admi t t hat t hese f act soccur r ed as out l i ned by t he pr osecut or , si r ?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: So you, ai ded and abet t ed byot her s, or ot her s ai di ng and abet t i ng you,

what ever way you want t o cal l i t , wer e i npossessi on of t hese f i r ear ms i n t hat car ?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

. . .

THE COURT: Do you st i l l want t o pl ead,si r ?

THE DEFENDANT: ( Noddi ng head up anddown. )

. . .

THE COURT: Wel l , I wi l l accept yourgui l t y pl ea t o t hese f our count s[ . ]


11/31

- 11 -

Whi l e t he di st r i ct cour t asked Fi guer oa whet her he had

been subj ect ed t o f or ce, t hr eat s, or i nducement s t o pl ead, and

Fi gueroa deni ed havi ng been, t he cour t di d not make an expr ess

f i ndi ng on the recor d as t o whet her Fi guer oa' s pl ea was knowi ng

and vol unt ar y, nor di d i t make a f i ndi ng as t o whet her t her e was

a suf f i ci ent f actual basi s f or t he pl ea.

III. The Sentencing Hearing

A Present ence I nvest i gat i on Repor t ( PSR) was i ssued on

May 2, 2012. Appl yi ng t he November 1, 2011, ver si on of t he Uni t ed

St ates Sent enci ng Gui del i nes Manual ( USSG) , t he PSR gr ouped al l

f our count s t ogether under USSG 3D1. 2( a) because t hey i nvol ved

t he same t r ansact i on. The PSR f ound a base of f ense l evel of 22

under USSG 2K2. 1( a) ( 3) , because t he of f ense i nvol ved a

semi aut omat i c f i r ear m capabl e of accept i ng a l ar ge capaci t y

magazi ne and Fi gueroa had commi t t ed t he of f ense af t er a f el ony

convi ct i on f or a cr i me of vi ol ence. The PSR added 2 l evel s under

USSG 2K2. 1( b) ( 1) , because t he of f ense i nvol ved 3 f i r ear ms and

another 2 l evel s under USSG 2K2. 1( b) ( 4) , because one of t he

f i r ear ms was r epor t ed st ol en. 6 Wi t h a 2- l evel r educt i on f or

6 Under Appl i cat i on Notes, comment 8( B) , USSG 2K2. 1( b) ( 4)"appl i es r egardl ess of whether t he def endant knew or had r eason t obel i eve t hat t he f i r ear m was st ol en[ . ] "


12/31

- 12 -

accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y, Fi guer oa' s t ot al of f ense l evel was

24.

The PSR ass i gned Fi guer oa 1 cr i mi nal hi st or y poi nt f or

a pr i or convi ct i on and an addi t i onal 2 poi nt s under USSG

4A1. 1( d) , because t he i nst ant of f ense had been commi t t ed whi l e

Fi guer oa was on pr obat i on. A t ot al of 3 cr i mi nal hi st or y poi nt s

put Fi guer oa i n Cr i mi nal Hi st or y Cat egor y ( CHC) I I , yi el di ng a

gui del i ne sent ence r ange of 57 t o 71 mont hs' i mpr i sonment . 7

The sent enci ng hear i ng was hel d on J ul y 5, 2012. Def ense

counsel st at ed on t he recor d t hat he had "no i ssues" wi t h t he PSR.

Af t er summar i zi ng t he f act s as det ai l ed at t he change of pl ea

hear i ng and i n t he PSR, t he di st r i ct cour t t ook Fi guer oa' s

al l ocut i on. The Gover nment r ecommended a sent ence of 71 mont hs.

The di st r i ct cour t t hen r equest ed t hat counsel j oi n i t

i n a si debar conf er ence t o di scuss t he requi r ement under 18 U. S. C.

924( a) ( 4) t hat any sent ence i mposed f or vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

922( q) - - her e, Fi guer oa' s count 4- - not r un concur r ent l y wi t h any

ot her t er m of i mpr i sonment . Gr oupi ng onl y count s 13, t he cour t

st at ed that t he gui del i ne range f or t he gr ouped count s was 57- 71

7 The maxi mum st at ut or y t er m of i mpr i sonment f or vi ol at i on of18 U. S. C. 922( g) , ( j ) , and ( o) , as al l eged i n count s 1 t hr ough 3,i s 10 year s' i mpr i sonment . 18 U. S. C. 924( a) ( 2) . The maxi mumst at ut or y ter mof i mpr i sonment f or vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( q) ,as al l eged i n count 4, i s 5 year s. 18 U. S. C. 924( a) ( 4) .


13/31

- 13 -

mont hs and, af t er i ni t i al l y i mpl yi ng t hat Fi guer oa' s 922( q)

vi ol at i on ( count 4) car r i ed a mandat or y sent ence of 60 mont hs, t he

cour t l at er char acter i zed 60 mont hs as a "hi gh end" sent ence f or

a 922( q) of f ense. The cour t t hen cal cul at ed t he consecut i ve

sent ence t o be i mposed f or vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( q) ,

concl udi ng i n conf or mi t y wi t h USSG 2K2. 5 t hat , gi ven a tot al

of f ense l evel of 6 f or t he 922( q) vi ol at i on and Fi guer oa' s CHC

of I I , t he gui del i nes r ange of i mpr i sonment was 1- 7 mont hs. 8

Concur r i ng wi t h t he Gover nment ' s r ecommendat i on, t he cour t i mposed

a sent ence of 71 mont hs' i mpr i sonment f or gr ouped count s 13 and

a consecut i ve sent ence of 7 mont hs' i mpr i sonment f or count 4, t he

18 U. S. C. 922( q) count , r esul t i ng i n a t ot al sent ence of 78

mont hs' i mpr i sonment .

As we wi l l expl ai n, t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n assumi ng

t hat t he r equi r ement t hat count 4' s sent ence r un consecut i vel y

pr event ed the cour t f r om i ncl udi ng count 4 among t he gr ouped

count s. I n f act , t he PSR had pr oper l y gr ouped al l f our count s

t oget her . Mor eover , t he r ecor d gi ves r eason t o doubt t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed t hat , even under i t s mi st aken

8 The cour t ar r i ved at t he t ot al of f ense l evel by st ar t i ngwi t h t he st at ut or y base of f ense l evel of 6, addi ng 2 l evel s becauseFi guer oa' s speci f i c 922( q) vi ol at i on was unl awf ul possessi on ofa f i r ear m i n a school zone, and appl yi ng a 2- l evel r educt i on f oraccept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y. See USSG 2K2. 5.


14/31

- 14 -

underst andi ng of t he gr oupi ng r ul es, a 78- mont h sent ence woul d

have been a hi gh- end gui del i nes sent ence. 9

Pl ayi ng t he r ol e of a pot t ed pl ant , def ense counsel

of f er ed no obj ect i on t hr oughout t he pr oceedi ngs, and t hen on appeal

f i l ed an Ander s10br i ef , whi ch we r ej ect ed, or der i ng t hat t he appeal

pr oceed wi t h counsel .

IV. Discussion

Fi guer oa ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

accept i ng hi s pl ea because t he recor d does not show t hat hi s pl ea

was ent er ed i nt el l i gent l y and knowi ngl y. He al so ar gues t hat t he

cour t commi t t ed pr ocedur al err or by i mposi ng a sent ence cont r ary

t o t he gui dance pr ovi ded by USSG 2K2. 5 and 3D1. 1. Fi nal l y,

Fi guer oa al l eges i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel . These

ar gument s wer e not r ai sed bel ow, so or di nar i l y, as Fi guer oa her e

concedes, we woul d r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or , see Uni t ed St at es v.

Pagn- Fer r er , 736 F. 3d 573, 593 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , cer t . deni ed sub

nom. Vi dal - Mal donado v. Uni t ed St ates, 134 S. Ct . 2839 ( 2014) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Bor r er o- Acevedo, 533 F. 3d 11, 15 n. 4 ( 1st Ci r .

9 At si debar , t he di st r i ct cour t char act er i zed "[ s] even mor emont hs" f or count 4 as " a bar gai n, i f you t hi nk. "

10 I n Ander s v. Cal i f or ni a, 386 U. S. 738 ( 1967) , t he Supr emeCour t not ed t hat an at t or ney may, pur suant t o cer t ai n pr ocedur alr equi r ement s, move t o wi t hdr aw on appeal i f t he at t orney concl udesaf t er a "consci ent i ous exami nat i on" of t he cl i ent ' s case t hat nonon- f r i vol ous gr ounds f or appeal exi st . I d. at 744.


15/31

- 15 -

2008) ( not i ng t hat t he U. S. Supr eme Cour t has conf i r med t hat

unpr eser ved cl ai ms of pl ea- pr ocess er r or ar e subj ect t o pl ai n er r or

r evi ew ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55, 5859, 61, 62

n. 4 ( 2002) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Gandi a- Maysonet , 227 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st

Ci r . 2000) ) ) .

I nexpl i cabl y, however , t he Gover nment ' s br i ef does not

r espond t o t he i ssues pr esent ed i n Fi guer oa' s br i ef , i ncl udi ng t he

al l egat i ons of er r or under Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 11,

whi ch governs t he pl ea pr ocess , and under USSG 2K2. 5 and 3D1. 1,

but r esponds r at her t o t he i ssues r ai sed i n a pr evi ousl y f i l ed

Anders br i ef . The Government al so does not addr ess what s t andard

of r evi ew shoul d appl y. We have st ated t hat " [ w] hen t he government

f ai l s t o r equest pl ai n er r or r evi ew, we, and many of our si st er

ci r cui t s, r evi ew t he cl ai m under t he st andar d of r evi ew t hat i s

appl i ed when t he i ssue i s pr oper l y pr eserved bel ow. " Uni t ed St at es

v. Encar naci n- Rui z, 787 F. 3d 581, 586 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( ci t i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Tapi aEscal er a, 356 F. 3d 181, 183 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) ) . On t he ot her hand, even i f t he Gover nment had made an

af f i r mat i ve concessi on as t o t he st andar d of r evi ew, we woul d not

be bound by i t . See Bor r er o- Acevedo, 533 F. 3d at 15 n. 3 ( ci t i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Mescual - Cr uz, 387 F. 3d 1, 8 n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) .

I n any event , we bel i eve Fi guer oa has met t he mor e st r i ngent pl ai n

er r or st andar d, and so t hat i s t he st andar d under whi ch we pr oceed.


16/31

- 16 -

A. The Sufficiency of the Plea

1. Legal standard

To show pl ai n er r or , a def endant must demonst r at e " ( 1)

' err or , ' ( 2) t hat i s ' pl ai n, ' and ( 3) t hat ' af f ect [ s] substant i al

r i ght s. ' I f al l t hr ee condi t i ons ar e met , an appel l at e cour t may

t hen exer ci se i t s di scret i on t o not i ce a f or f ei t ed er r or , but onl y

i f ( 4) t he err or ' ser i ous l y af f ect [ s] t he f ai rness, i nt egr i t y, or

publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. ' " Bor r er o- Acevedo, 533

F. 3d at 15 ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng J ohnson v. Uni t ed

St at es, 520 U. S. 461, 467 ( 1997) ) ; accor d Uni t ed St at es v. Padi l l a,

415 F. 3d 211, 218 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( en banc) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Duar t e, 246 F. 3d 56, 60 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) .

"I n appl yi ng pl ai n er r or anal ysi s i n gui l t y pl ea cases,

a def endant must , i n or der t o demonst r at e that hi s subst ant i al

r i ght s wer e af f ect ed, ' show a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y that , but f or

t he er r or , he woul d not have ent er ed t he [ gui l t y] pl ea. ' " Uni t ed

St at es v. Car abal l o- Rodr i guez, 480 F. 3d 62, 69 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Domi nguez

Beni t ez, 542 U. S. 74, 83 ( 2004) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Del gado- Her nandez, 420 F. 3d 16, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( f i ndi ng t hat

def i ci enci es i n t he Gover nment ' s f act ual pr of f er do not cr eat e

pl ai n er r or i f def endant i s other wi se awar e of Gover nment ' s

evi dence agai nst hi m) . "A def endant must t hus sat i sf y t he j udgment


17/31

- 17 -

of t he r evi ewi ng cour t , i nf or med by the ent i r e r ecor d, t hat t he

pr obabi l i t y of a di f f er ent r esul t i s suf f i ci ent t o under mi ne

conf i dence i n t he out come of t he pr oceedi ng. " Car abal l o-

Rodr i guez, 480 F. 3d at 69- 70 ( quot i ng Domi nguez Beni t ez, 542 U. S.

at 83) ; see al so Rami r ez- Bur gos v. Uni t ed St at es, 313 F. 3d 23, 29

( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( "An er r or af f ects subst ant i al r i ght s i f i t was

' pr ej udi ci al , ' meani ng t hat t he er r or ' must have af f ect ed t he

out come of t he di st r i ct cour t pr oceedi ngs. ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Ol ano, 507 U. S. 725, 734 ( 1993) ) ) .

2. The plea colloquy did not establish that

Figueroa's plea was knowing and voluntary

Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 11 r equi r es t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t make t he def endant aware of " t he nat ur e of each

char ge t o whi ch t he def endant i s pl eadi ng. " Fed. R. Cr i m. P.

11( b) ( 1) ( G) . I ndeed, "ensur i ng t hat t he def endant under st ands t he

el ement s of t he charges t hat t he pr osecut i on woul d have to pr ove

at t r i al " i s "a ' cor e concer n' of Rul e 11. " Gandi a- Maysonet , 227

F. 3d at 3 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . And " r evi ewi ng cour t s have been

wi l l i ng t o i nt er vene" when, as her e, an er r or i n t he pl ea pr ocess

i mpl i cat es t hat "core concer n. " I d. I n Uni t ed St at es v. Gandi a-

Maysonet , f or exampl e, we vacat ed a pl ea as not knowi ng and

vol unt ary when t he di st r i ct cour t and t he pl ea agr eement bot h

mi sst at ed t he sci ent er r equi r ement f or car j acki ng. I d. at 46.


18/31

- 18 -

We f ound the mi sst atement i n Gandi a t o be obvi ousl y err oneous.

See i d. The same i s t r ue i n t hi s case.

Her e, t he cour t di d not ensure t hat Fi guer oa under st ood

what t he Government needed t o pr ove agai nst hi m t o support a

convi ct i on. There was no pl ea agr eement t o evi dence t hat Fi gueroa

had r evi ewed and acknowl edged pr i or t o t he hear i ng t he natur e of

t he char ges and t he si gni f i cance of pl eadi ng gui l t y. At t he

hear i ng, t he cour t di d not ask Fi gueroa whether he had r ead t he

i ndi ct ment , nor whet her he had r evi ewed i t wi t h hi s at t or ney and

under st ood i t . 11 The cour t muddi ed what t hi n r ecor d t here was by

r epeat edl y aski ng conf usi ng, compound, and/ or i nt er nal l y

cont r adi ct or y quest i ons and by f ai l i ng t o f ol l ow up suf f i ci ent l y

on Fi guer oa' s deni al s or ambi guous st at ement s r egar di ng the

el ement s of t he char ged of f enses. Gi ven al l t he at t endant

ci r cumst ances, we bel i eve t he r ecor d l eaves si gni f i cant doubt s

about Fi guer oa' s under st andi ng of t he nat ur e of al l t he char ges.

Mor eover , t he pl ea col l oquy i t sel f di d not pr ovi de

i l l umi nat i on. The cour t di d not adequat el y expl ai n, and mi sst at ed

t he Gover nment ' s bur den i n pr ovi ng, t he r equi si t e mens r ea. Whi l e

t he cour t expl ai ned i n general t erms, and Fi gueroa acknowl edged he

underst ood, t hat t he Government had t he bur den t o pr ove that t he

11 The di st r i ct cour t asked onl y, "You have seen t hei ndi ct ment , cor r ect ?"


19/31

- 19 -

act s al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment "wer e ent er ed i nt o by [ Fi guer oa]

knowi ngl y, wi l l f ul l y and unl awf ul l y . . . wi t h a bad pur pose t o

di sobey or di sr egar d t he l aw, and not because of mi st ake, acci dent ,

or ot her i nnocent r eason, " t he cour t ' s subsequent par t i cul ar i zed

expl anat i ons of t he char ges r epeat edl y st at ed a l esser bur den.

For i nst ance, count 2, t he "st ol en f i r ear ms" char ge,

r equi r ed pr oof t hat Fi guer oa "knew or had reasonabl e cause t o

bel i eve t hat t he f i r ear m[ ] [ was] st ol en. " See Uni t ed St at es v.

Ri dol f i , 768 F. 3d 57, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( ci t i ng 18 U. S. C.

922( j ) ) . Fi guer oa, r eact i ng t o t he cour t ' s expl anat i on of count

2, act ual l y deni ed knowl edge t hat t he subj ect f i r ear m was st ol en.

I n r esponse, t he cour t posed an al t er nat i ve not i on of mens r ea not

f ound i n t he appl i cabl e st at ut e, aski ng whet her " t her e was a

possi bi l i t y when you bought i t or wher ever you bought i t or f ound

i t or t ook i t , God knows how i t got t her e, i t coul d have been

st ol en?" Fi guer oa answer ed i n t he af f i r mat i ve, and t he cour t t hen

moved on as i f t he answer wer e suf f i ci ent . We ar e t hus l ef t wi t h

a r ecor d on whi ch i t appear s t hat Fi gueroa deni ed knowi ng t hat t he

gun was st ol en, yet was coaxed i nt o t hi nki ng i t suf f i ci ent t hat

t her e was a mer e possi bi l i t y t hat i t had been st ol en. 12

12 I t al so i s not cl ear f r om t hi s exchange whet her Fi guer oawas admi t t i ng he bought , t ook, or f ound t he f i r ear m, or t hat i twas i n t he vehi cl e "God knows how[ . ] "


20/31

- 20 -

The di st r i ct cour t al so mi sst at ed t he r equi si t e mens r ea

wi t h r espect t o count 4, " t he school zone" count . Under 18 U. S. C.

922( q) ( 2) ( A) , "[ i ] t shal l be unl awf ul f or any i ndi vi dual

knowi ngl y t o possess a f i r ear m t hat has moved i n or t hat ot her wi se

af f ect s i nt er st at e or f or ei gn commer ce at a pl ace t hat t he

i ndi vi dual knows, or has r easonabl e cause t o bel i eve, i s a school

zone. " 13 See Uni t ed St ates v. Guzmn- Mont aez, 756 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st

Ci r . 2014) ( def endant char ged under 18 U. S. C. 922( q) ( 2) ( A) must

have known or r easonabl y shoul d have known he was i n a school

zone) . Fi guer oa di d not admi t , nor was t her e any pr of f er st at i ng,

t hat he possessed a f i r ear m knowi ng or havi ng r easonabl e cause t o

bel i eve he was i n a school zone. At most , Fi guer oa i ndi cat ed onl y

t hat hi s presence i n what t ur ned out t o be a school zone was a

coi nci dence. I n r esponse, t he cour t agai n suggest ed t hat a

st andard l ess t han personal knowl edge or r easonabl e cause t o

bel i eve was enough: "But he knew t here was a school t here?

Ever ybody knows t her e' s a school , Sagr ado Cor azon, i n Sant ur ce.

Wel l , i t ' s common knowl edge. You can see t he school f r om t he

st r eet . Do you under st and t hat , si r ?" Gi ven t he mi sdi r ect ed

13 A school zone i s an ar ea wi t hi n school gr ounds or "wi t hi na di st ance of 1, 000 f eet f r om t he gr ounds of a publ i c, par ochi alor pri vat e school . " 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 25) ; see al so Uni t ed St at esv. Ni evesCast ao, 480 F. 3d 597, 60304 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .


21/31

- 21 -

nat ur e of t he cour t ' s quest i on, i t i s not cl ear what Fi guer oa was

admi t t i ng or t hought was r equi r ed. 14

Next , i n summar i zi ng al l t he char ged of f enses, t he

di st r i ct cour t agai n af f i r mat i vel y suggest ed a l esser mens r ea

t han t he l aw r equi r es. Fi r st , i t mi sst at ed t he r equi r ed pr oof f or

count s 2, 3, and 4, suggest i ng t hat pr oof t hat Fi guer oa was i n

possessi on of "one of t hose f i r ear ms t hat happened t o be st ol en .

. . [ or ] t hat happened t o be an aut omat i c f i r ear m conver t ed or

ot her wi se, and [ t hat ] i t so happened al l t hese f i r ear ms wer e

possessed i n a school zone" was suf f i ci ent t o pr ove t he of f enses.

Of cour se, t he f act t hat a f i r ear m "happened t o be" anyt hi ng i s

not enough t o est abl i sh cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y under t he char ged

of f enses. The cour t cr eat ed f ur t her conf usi on by aski ng Fi guer oa

whet her he had any doubt about what he was pl eadi ng t o. The court

asked, "No doubt ? Do you have a doubt or no doubt ? No doubt ?"

Fr omFi gueroa' s "No, " we do not know whet her he meant he had doubt

or he had no doubt .

The di st r i ct cour t al so f ai l ed t o of f er any expl anat i on

of t he Gover nment ' s bur den i n pr ovi ng the ai di ng and abet t i ng

14 As we have hel d, evi dence of t he l ocat i on of a school oreven of t he f act t hat i t i s vi s i bl e f r om t he l ocat i on of adef endant ' s unl awf ul possessi on of a f i r ear m i s i nsuf f i ci ent , i ni t sel f , t o pr ove knowi ng possessi on of a f i r ear m i n a school zone.See Guzmn- Mont aez, 756 F. 3d at 11- 12.


22/31

- 22 -

count s. See Encarnaci n- Rui z, 787 F. 3d at 584 ( " [ T] he government

must pr ove that an ai der and abet t or of cr i mi nal conduct

part i ci pated wi t h advance knowl edge of t he el ement s t hat

const i t ut e t he char ged of f ense. " ) ( ci t i ng Rosemond v. Uni t ed

St at es, 134 S. Ct . 1240, 1248- 49 ( 2014) ) . I n t hi s r espect , nei t her

t he Gover nment nor t he di st r i ct cour t made any ef f or t t o

di st i ngui sh bet ween the pr oof necessary t o convi ct Fi guer oa as a

pr i nci pal and t hat r equi r ed t o convi ct hi mas an ai der and abet t or .

Thus, t he r ecor d does not est abl i sh t hat Fi guer oa under st ood t he

di f f er ence bet ween "possessi ng f i r ear ms" and "ai di ng and abet t i ng

ot her s i n possessi ng f i r ear ms. "15

The di st r i ct cour t f ur t her compounded t hi s er r or t hrough

i t s conf usi ng quest i on, "So you, ai ded and abet t ed by ot her s, or

ot her s ai di ng and abet t i ng you, what ever way you want t o cal l i t ,

were i n possessi on of t hese f i r ear ms i n t hat car ?" We do not know

whet her Fi guer oa' s r esponse of "Yes" t o t hi s di sj oi nt ed compound

quest i on meant t hat he was " i n possessi on of t hese f i r ear ms i n

t hat car " or "other s . . . wer e i n possessi on of t hese f i r ear ms i n

t hat car . " We do not know whi ch t heor y of l i abi l i t y t he Gover nment

15 "I n or der t o sust ai n a convi ct i on f or ai di ng and abet t i ngt he government must pr ove, i n addi t i on t o t he commi ss i on of t heof f ense by t he pr i nci pal , t hat t he def endant consci ousl y shar edt he pr i nci pal ' s knowl edge of t he under l yi ng cr i mi nal act , andi nt ended t o hel p t he pr i nci pal . " Uni t ed St at es v. Hender son, 320F. 3d 92, 109 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .


23/31

- 23 -

i nt ended t o pur sue, as, i ndeed, nei t her t he Gover nment nor t he

di st r i ct cour t of f er ed any expl anat i on of t he di st i nct i on bet ween

pr i nci pal and ai der and abet t or l i abi l i t y.

Last but not l east , Fi guer oa' s f i nal , f or mal ent r y of a

pl ea was i t sel f ambi guous and l ess t han expl i ci t . Accor di ng t o

common pr act i ce, t he col l oquy r esul t i ng i n a gui l t y pl ea concl udes

wi t h t he quest i on, "How do you now pl ead t o t he char ge, gui l t y or

not gui l t y?" West ' s Feder al For ms, 84: 42 ( May 2014) . So t hat

an expl i ci t , non- ambi guous r ecor d i s cr eat ed, t he def endant shoul d

be pr ompt ed t o st at e ei t her " gui l t y" or " not gui l t y. " Her e, t he

cour t di d not f ol l ow t hi s sensi bl e pr act i ce. Rat her , i t asked,

"Do you st i l l want t o pl ead, si r ?" Fi guer oa t hen gave no ver bal

or or al answer at al l , but i nst ead onl y nodded hi s head up and

down. Agai n, we ar e l ef t wi t hout an unambi guous, expl i ci t

admi ssi on of gui l t .

3. The district court's numerous plain errors in

accepting Figueroa's guilty plea prejudicially

affected the fairness of the proceedings

The f or egoi ng demonst r at es t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

commi t t ed pl ai n and obvi ous er r or i n ent er i ng Fi guer oa' s pl ea as

knowi ng and vol unt ary. Remai ni ng are t he t hi r d and f our t h pr ongs

of t he pl ai n er r or st andar d. Gandi a- Maysonet , 227 F. 3d 1, i s

i nst r uct i ve on t hose poi nt s as wel l . I n Gandi a, we f ound t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s er r or i n descri bi ng t he mens r ea f or car j acki ng


24/31

- 24 -

as " knowi ngl y and unl awf ul l y, " r at her t han as " wi t h t he i nt ent t o

cause deat h or ser i ous bodi l y har m, " suf f i ci ent l y pr ej udi ci al t o

af f ect t he def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s, t hus sat i sf yi ng t he

t hi r d pr ong of pl ai n er r or r evi ew. Gandi a, 227 F. 3d at 45. We

t hought t hat t he cour t ' s " r epeat ed mi sst at ement , i f accept ed by

[ t he def endant ] , coul d wel l have encour aged hi m t o pl ead gui l t y.

Af t er al l , a def endant who honest l y di d not t hi nk t hat he had

i nt ended t o ki l l or mai m mi ght wel l br i dl e i f t ol d t hat he had t o

admi t t o t hi s i nt ent . . . . " I d. at 5. The di s tr i ct court ' s

mi sst at ement s about t he sci ent er r equi r ement s at Fi guer oa' s

col l oquy wer e at l east as conf usi ng and mi sl eadi ng as t hose i n

Gandi a. Addi t i onal l y, as i n Gandi a, t her e i s l i t t l e evi dence t hat

t he def endant underst ood t he el ement f r omsome other sour ce. See

i d. And so we concl ude t hat t hi s conf usi on "coul d wel l have

encour aged [ t he def endant ] t o pl ead gui l t y. " I d.

I f t her e wer e any doubt , our concl usi on i s easi l y

conf i r med by t he manner i n whi ch a weakness i n t he government ' s

pr of f er al i gns wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s most gl ar i ng er r or s i n

expl ai ni ng t he l aw. The gover nment ' s pr of f er of f er ed at best a

sket chy basi s f or i nf er r i ng t hat Fi guer oa possessed or

const r uct i vel y possessed t he f i r ear ms, much l ess t hat he knew t hat

any wer e st ol en. The pr of f er showed onl y t hat Fi guer oa was i n t he

back seat of a car t hat cont ai ned t hr ee f i r ear ms, one of whi ch was

somewher e on t he f l oor of t he car . Such pr esence, by i t sel f , i s


25/31

- 25 -

not enough t o est abl i sh cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y. See, e. g. , Ri dol f i ,

768 F. 3d at 62 ( not i ng t hat "mere pr esence wi t h or pr oxi mi t y t o

weapons, or associ at i on wi t h another who possesses a weapon, i s

not enough" t o sust ai n a convi ct i on f or f i r ear ms possessi on) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Davi s, 773 F. 3d 334, 342 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( same) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Lozada, 558 F. 3d 29, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2009)

( same) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Duval , 496 F. 3d 64, 79 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( same) . Rat her , t he Gover nment must show "some act i on, some word,

or some conduct t hat l i nks t he i ndi vi dual t o t he cont r aband and

i ndi cat es t hat he had some st ake i n i t , some power over i t . "

Uni t ed St at es v. McLean, 409 F. 3d 492, 501 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( quot i ng

I n r e Seal ed Case, 105 F. 3d 1460, 1463 ( D. C. Ci r . 1997) ) . Ther e

was no such f act conceded or otherwi se made a par t of t he r ecor d

t hat pr ovi ded a rat i onal basi s f or concl udi ng Fi guer oa "had some

st ake i n" or "some power over " t he weapons i n t he car . 16

16 The cl osest t he pr of f er comes t o suggest i ng Fi gueroa wasi n const r uct i ve possessi on of a f i r ear m i s t he al l egat i on t hat af i r ear m was f ound "i n t he f l oor of t he car " af t er Fi guer oa exi t edt he vehi cl e. From t hi s, one r easonabl y mi ght i nf er t hat t hef i r ear m was f ound on t he f l oor near wher e Fi guer oa was si t t i ng,f r om whi ch one reasonabl y mi ght i nf er t hat i t was wi t hi n ar m' sr each of Fi guer oa, f r om whi ch one r easonabl y mi ght i nf er Fi guer oaknew t he weapon was wi t hi n arm' s r each, f r om whi ch one reasonabl ymi ght i nf er t hat Fi guer oa was i n possessi on of t he f i r ear m. Fact s,however , may not be est abl i shed by st acki ng i nf erence uponi nf er ence. See Uni t ed St at es v. Lpez- D az, 794 F. 3d 106, 11314( 1st Ci r . 2015) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Bur gos, 703 F. 3d 1, 10( 1st Ci r . 2012) ) . Agai n, t her e wer e no f act s i ndi cat i ng Fi guer oaknew t her e was a f i r ear m " i n t he f l oor , " or t hat he "knowi ngl y[ had] t he power and i nt ent i on at a gi ven t i me to exer ci se domi ni onor cont r ol over [ a f i r ear m] ei t her di r ect l y or t hr ough ot her s. "


26/31

- 26 -

The di st r i ct cour t t her ef or e had bef or e i t a def endant

cl ai mi ng a l ack of t he pr eci se knowl edge f or whi ch t he pr osecut i on

was of f er i ng no evi dence at al l . I n shor t , a man was appar ent l y

and unwi t t i ngl y t el l i ng t he cour t t hat he was ver y l i kel y not

gui l t y of t he char ge, wi t h no evi dence t o t he cont r ar y. We have

no di f f i cul t y f i ndi ng i n such a case t hat , but f or t he cour t ' s

er r or i n wr ongf ul l y di sr egar di ng Fi guer oa' s unwi t t i ng cl ai ms of

i nnocence, t her e i s a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat t hi s gui l t y pl ea

woul d not have been ent ered.

Nor , f i nal l y, i s t her e any doubt t hat t he er r or ser i ousl y

af f ect s t he f ai r ness and i nt egr i t y of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. We

not ed i n Gandi a t hat t he pl ea' s " f or ce . . . i n evi denci ng ar guabl e

gui l t was subst ant i al l y under cut by t he mi sst at ement of t he

sci ent er st andar d. " I d. at 6. Gi ven t hat , i n combi nat i on wi t h

t he f act t hat " t he ot her evi dence of sci ent er was t hi n ( al t hough

not beyond r easonabl e i nf er ence) , " we hel d t hat t he f our t h pr ong

of pl ai n er r or r evi ew was sat i sf i ed, "because [ t he er r or ] ser i ousl y

af f ected t he gui l t y pl ea col l oquy' s f ai r ness and i nt egr i t y. " I d.

The same r esul t i s di ct at ed by t he er r or s i n t hi s case.

Uni t ed St at es v. McLean, 409 F. 3d 492, 501 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( quot i ngUni t ed St at es v. Car l os Cr uz, 352 F. 3d 499, 510 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) ;see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Robi nson, 473 F. 3d 387, 399 ( 1st Ci r .2007) ( f i ndi ng const r uct i ve possessi on of f i r ear m f ound hi dden i nvehi cl e' s engi ne compar t ment shown by, i nt er al i a, def endant ' sst atement t hat , "When t hey came f r omeverywhere, I coul d have goneboom, boom") .


27/31

- 27 -

B. Sentencing Error

Al t hough vacat i on of t he j udgment on t he gr ounds s t ated

above obvi at es t he need t o addr ess t he di st r i ct cour t ' s al l eged

sent enci ng er r or , f or sake of compl et eness, we next addr ess

Fi guer oa' s argument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed pr ocedur al

er r or by i mposi ng a sent ence cont r ar y t o t he gui dance pr ovi ded at

USSG 2K2. 5 and 3D1. 1. Because t hi s i ssue i s rai sed f or t he

f i r st t i me on appeal , r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or . Uni t ed St at es v.

Goodhue, 486 F. 3d 52, 55- 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

"We r evi ew cr i mi nal sent ences f or r easonabl eness, usi ng

an abuse of di scr et i on st andar d. " Uni t ed St at es v. Leahy, 668

F. 3d 18, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( ci t i ng Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es, 552

U. S. 38, 46 ( 2007) ) . Thi s r evi ew "i s bi f ur cat ed: we f i r st

determi ne whether t he sent ence i mposed i s procedur al l y reasonabl e

and t hen det er mi ne whet her i t i s subst ant i vel y r easonabl e. " I d.

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Cl ogst on, 662 F. 3d 588, 590 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ) . For a sent ence t o be pr ocedur al l y r easonabl e, t he di st r i ct

cour t must have pr oper l y cal cul at ed the gui del i ne sent enci ng

r ange. See Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 92 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) ( expl ai ni ng t hat pr ocedur al er r or s i ncl ude "f ai l i ng t o

cal cul at e ( or i mpr oper l y cal cul at i ng) t he Gui del i nes r ange"

( quot i ng Gal l , 552 U. S. at 51) ) .


28/31

- 28 -

I n t he i nst ant case, t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed

pr ocedur al er r or by i mpr oper l y cal cul at i ng t he Gui del i nes r ange.

Because t he f our of f enses i n quest i on i nvol ved t he same act or

t r ansact i on, t hey were pr oper l y gr ouped under USSG 3D1. 2( a) .

For count s i ncl uded i n a si ngl e gr oup because they i nvol ved t he

same act or t r ansact i on, "t he of f ense l evel appl i cabl e to [ t he]

Gr oup i s t he of f ense l evel . . . f or t he most ser i ous of t he count s

compr i si ng t he Gr oup, i . e. , t he hi ghest of f ense l evel of t he count s

i n t he Gr oup. " USSG 3D1. 3( a) . I n t he i nst ant case, t he most

ser i ous count s compr i si ng t he gr oup were count s 1, 2, and 3. The

of f ense l evel appl i cabl e t o t he gr oup, t hen, was t he of f ense l evel

appl i cabl e t o count s 1, 2, and 3. I n t hi s case, t hat of f ense l evel

was 24, yi el di ng a gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange of 57- 71 mont hs'

i mpr i sonment at CHC I I .

The di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n cal cul at i ng t he gui del i nes

r ange by r emovi ng count 4 f r om t he gr oup, cal cul at i ng a gui del i ne

r ange f or i t separ at el y, and t hen addi ng t he count 4 cal cul at i on

t o t he gr oup cal cul at i on. The cour t was cor r ect i n r unni ng t he

t er m of i mpr i sonment f or count 4 consecut i vel y, but er r ed by

r unni ng i t i n addi t i on t o t he gui del i ne r ange cal cul at ed f or t he

gr oup.

Mul t i pl e count s of convi ct i on are gr ouped under USSG

3D1. 1( a) ( 1) by appl yi ng t he gr oupi ng r ul es of USSG 3D1. 2.


29/31

- 29 -

Under USSG 3D1. 2( a) , convi ct i ons ar e gr ouped t oget her i f t hey

i nvol ve t he same act or t r ansact i on. But USSG 3D1. 1( b) ( 1) ( B)

cr eat es an except i on t o t hi s r ul e f or any count of convi ct i on t hat

" r equi r es t hat [ i t s] t er m of i mpr i sonment be i mposed t o r un

consecut i vel y t o any ot her t er m of i mpr i sonment . " Mor eover ,

Appl i cat i on Not e 2 t o USSG 3D1. 1 pr ovi des t hat a convi ct i on under

18 U. S. C. 922( q) i s not subj ect t o t hi s except i on, and t hat t he

mul t i pl e count r ul es t her ef or e appl y. The r esul t t hat f ol l ows

f r om t hi s gui dance i s consi st ent wi t h t he gui dance set f or t h at

Appl i cat i on Note 3 t o USSG 2K2. 5, whi ch pr ovi des t hat when " t he

def endant i s convi ct ed bot h of [ an] under l yi ng of f ense and 18

U. S. C. 922( q) , t he cour t shoul d appor t i on t he sent ence bet ween

t he count f or t he under l yi ng of f ense and t he count under 18 U. S. C.

922( q) . " 17 By st r ayi ng f r om t hi s gui dance and not appor t i oni ng

t he sent ence f or vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( q) as par t of t he

gui del i nes r ange, t he cour t i mposed a sent ence above t he gui del i nes

r ange sent ence, even t hough i t apparent l y i nt ended t o i mpose a

gui del i nes sent ence. 18 Accor di ngl y, we concl ude t he f i r st t wo

17 " For exampl e, i f t he gui del i ne range i s 30- 37 mont hs andt he cour t det er mi nes ' t ot al puni shment ' of 36 mont hs i s

appr opr i at e, a sent ence of 30 mont hs f or t he under l yi ng of f ense,pl us 6 mont hs under 18 U. S. C. 922( q) woul d sat i sf y t hi sr equi r ement . " USSG 2K2. 5, Appl i cat i on Not e 3.

18I t i s not cl ear f r om t he r ecor d whet her t he di st r i ct cour t

r ecogni zed t hat , even under i t s mi st aken underst andi ng of t hegr oupi ng r ul es, 78 mont hs woul d have r epr esent ed a hi gh- endgui del i nes sent ence. At si debar , t he cour t af t er some di scussi on


30/31

- 30 -

pr ongs of t he pl ai n er r or st andar d have been met , namel y, t hat ( 1)

t her e was an er r or , and ( 2) t he er r or was pl ai n or obvi ous.

We al so concl ude t hat t he t hi r d pr ong of t he pl ai n er r or

st andar d has been met , i n t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s er r or af f ect ed

Fi guer oa' s subst ant i al r i ght s, i . e. , i t af f ected t he out come of

t he cour t ' s pr oceedi ngs. The r ecor d cl ear l y shows t hat t he cour t

bel i eved t he gui del i nes cal l ed f or t he st acki ng of t he count 4

per i od on t op of t he gr oup per i od, r at her t han appor t i oni ng t he

of f enses wi t hi n t he gr oup per i od, t hus i ncr easi ng t he gui dance by

seven mont hs. I t al so appear s that t he cour t ' s i nt ent i on was to

i mpose a gui del i nes sent ence, pr oper l y cal cul at ed. Absent any

i ndi cat i on t o t he cont r ar y, we t her ef or e pr esume t hat , but f or t he

er r or , t her e i s a reasonabl e l i kel i hood t hat t he sent ence woul d

have been shor t er . See Uni t ed St at es v. Or t i z, 741 F. 3d 288, 293

94 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

cor r ect l y st at ed t hat 60 mont hs i s t he st at ut or y maxi mum f orvi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( q) , see 18 U. S. C. 924( a) ( 4) , butwhen i ssui ng i t s sent ence, t he cour t st at ed, " I f I wer e t o do hi gh

end on both ends, I woul d have t o sent ence you t o 71 and 60.That ' s 117 mont hs. " The hi gh end of a gui del i nes sent ence underCHC I I f or vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( q) i s i n f act 7 mont hs.The r ecor d suggest s a r i sk t hat t he cour t was mi xi ng appl es( gui del i ne ranges) and or anges ( st at ut or y maxi mums) , l eadi ng i t t oi mpose a var i ant or upwar dl y depar t i ng sent ence whi l e bel i evi ngi t sel f t o be i mposi ng a mor e l eni ent gui del i nes sent ence.


31/31

Fi nal l y, we bel i eve t he cour t ' s sent enci ng er r or

"ser i ousl y af f ects t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y or publ i c reput at i on of

j udi ci al proceedi ngs. " As we st at ed i n Uni t ed Stat es v. D az-

Cor r ea, 287 F. App' x 899 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( unpubl i shed per cur i am) :

"Wher e cor r ect i on of [ ] a gui del i nes cal cul at i on er r or woul d l ead

t o a l ower sent ence, r emand f or r esent enci ng i s or di nar i l y

war r ant ed under t he t hi r d and f our t h pr ongs of [ t he pl ai n er r or ]

st andar d. " I d. at 90001 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ant onakopoul os,

399 F. 3d 68, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) .

V. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we vacat e Fi guer oa' s

convi ct i on and sent ence, and we r emand t o a di f f er ent di st r i ct

cour t j udge f or pr oper consi der at i on of t he pr oposed pl ea,

i ncl udi ng consi der at i on of whet her t her e i s a suf f i ci ent f act ual

basi s t o suppor t t he pl ea, and such f ur t her pr oceedi ngs as ar e

t hen cal l ed f or . 19

19 Because we r ecommend the j udgment be vacat ed, we need notaddr ess Fi guer oa' s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m.

united states v. figueroa-ocasio, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents