United States v. Pacheco, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Pacheco, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 11- 2301

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

GI SELI NE PACHECO,

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 or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Li pez, Ci r cui t J udges.

Thomas J . Tr ebi l cock- Hor an, Research and Wr i t i ng Speci al i st ,wi t h whom Hct or E. Guzmn- Si l va, Feder al Publ i c Def ender , andHct or L. Ramos- Vega, Assi st ant Feder al Publ i c Def ender , wer e onbr i ef f or appel l ant .

J ust i n Rei d Mar t i n, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Nel sonPr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef , Appel l at eDi vi si on, and J uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, wer e on br i ef f or appel l ee.

August 13, 2013


2/25

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. On March 11, 2011, Gi sel i ne

Pacheco ( "Pacheco") was ar r est ed at an ai r por t i n Puer t o Ri co f or

at t empt i ng t o i mpor t 672 gr ams of her oi n f r om t he Domi ni can

Republ i c. On Apr i l 6, 2011, t he gover nment i ndi ct ed Pacheco f or :

( 1) conspi r i ng t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e her oi n i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 846; ( 2) possessi ng wi t h t he i nt ent t o

di st r i but e her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841; ( 3) conspi r i ng

t o i mpor t her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 963; and ( 4) i mpor t i ng

her oi n i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 852 and

960. Pacheco ent er ed a st r ai ght gui l t y pl ea and was sent enced t o

24 mont hs' i mpr i sonment and t wo years of supervi sed r el ease.

Pacheco ar gues t hat her sent ence i s procedur al l y and

subst ant i vel y f l awed and request s t hat we vacat e and remand f or

r esent enci ng because the di st r i ct cour t : ( 1) er r ed i n denyi ng her

r equest f or a cont i nuance of t he sent enci ng hear i ng; ( 2) sent enced

her under t he i ncor r ect i mpr essi on t hat i t coul d not f or ego t he

i mposi t i on of a t er m of i mpr i sonment wi t hout t he gover nment f i r st

r equest i ng a downward depart ur e pur suant t o U. S. S. G. 5K1. 1 ( t he

" 5K1. 1 mot i on" ) ; and ( 3) di d not af f or d her t he r i ght t o

al l ocut e. We r ej ect her cont ent i ons and af f i r m.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

At t he t i me of her ar r est , Pacheco, a 20- year - ol d si ngl e

mot her of t wo young chi l dr en, ages f our and f i ve, was pregnant wi t h

her t hi r d chi l d. When she was det ai ned, Pacheco named t he man who

-2-


3/25

had al l egedl y recr ui t ed her t o i mpor t t he dr ugs ( t he "r ecrui t er ") .

Pacheco was l at er abl e t o pi ck t he r ecr ui t er out of a l i neup and

expr essed her wi l l i ngness t o cooper at e i n a case pendi ng agai nst

hi m at t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t i n Puer t o Ri co. As i t t ur ned

out , a gr and j ur y i n Puer t o Ri co had i ndi ct ed t he r ecr ui t er sever al

mont hs ear l i er , but t he aut hor i t i es had onl y ar r est ed hi m t he day

bef ore Pacheco was det ai ned.

On Mar ch 29, 2011, t he Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney

( "AUSA") i n char ge of t he case, AUSA J ust i n R. Mar t i n ( "AUSA

Mar t i n" ) cont act ed Pacheco' s counsel t o expr ess t he gover nment ' s

i ncl i nat i on t o meet wi t h Pacheco t o di scuss her pot ent i al

cooper at i on t o super sede the recrui t er ' s i ndi ct ment by hol di ng hi m

account abl e f or l ar ger quant i t i es of her oi n, based on t he amount

Pacheco car r i ed when she was arr est ed. The part i es schedul ed a

meet i ng f or May 11, 2011, and the government r eserved gr and j ur y

t i me t o super sede t he al l eged r ecr ui t er ' s i ndi ct ment . I n t he

meant i me, t he government i ndi ct ed Pacheco.

Dur i ng t he meet i ng wi t h t he gover nment , Pacheco i ni t i al l y

r ecant ed and deni ed t he recr ui t er ' s i nvol vement i n t he event s t hat

l ed t o her ar r est . By t he end of t he meet i ng, however , af t er

speaki ng wi t h her at t or ney al one, Pacheco r ever t ed t o her or i gi nal

ver si on of t he event s, but r ef used t o cooperat e i n any manner t hat

-3-


4/25

coul d r eveal t o the recr ui t er t hat she had done so. 1 She al so

r ef used t o t est i f y agai nst hi m bef or e a Gr and J ur y or at t r i al .

Based on t hi s, t he par t i es wer e unabl e t o f i nal i ze a pl ea agr eement

and Pacheco ent ered a st r ai ght pl ea.

At t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng, t he j udge asked t he

government i f i t woul d f i l e a 5K1. 1 mot i on r equest i ng a downward

depar t ur e f or subst ant i al assi st ance. The gover nment r esponded i t

woul d not because Pacheco had been gi ven the oppor t uni t y t o

cooper at e and t he r ecr ui t er had al r eady pl ed gui l t y pur suant t o a

pl ea agr eement . The j udge nonethel ess st r ongl y encour aged t he

par t i es t o expl or e ways f or Pacheco t o cooper at e.

Accor di ng t o t he government , AUSA Mar t i n and hi s

i mmedi at e super vi sor deci ded t hat , wi t h Pacheco' s assent , t he

gover nment coul d f i l e an i nf or mat i ve mot i on i n t he al l eged

r ecrui t er ' s case, pr i or t o hi s sent enci ng. Accor di ng t o t he

gover nment ' s br i ef ,

al t hough t he benef i t t o the government off i l i ng t hat i nf or mat i ve mot i on was pr act i cal l yi nexi st ent , because t he government was al r eadyobl i gat ed under [ t he r ecrui t er ' s] pl eaagr eement t o r ecommend t hat he be sent enced t oa 108- mont h i mpr i sonment t erm, i t was t he onl y

1 Accor di ng t o Pacheco, i t was not unt i l t he May 11t h meet i ng t hat

she f ound out t he government woul d ask her t o t est i f y bef ore agr and j ur y and, i f necessar y, i n open cour t . Af t er l ear ni ng t hi s,she suf f er ed a pani c at t ack as she recal l ed a t r aumat i c exper i enceshe had when she was 15 year s ol d test i f yi ng agai nst a man who hadassaul t ed her . She al so al l eges t hat , i n t he pr evi ous sever aldays, ot her det ai nees at t he f eder al det ent i on cent er wher e she wasbei ng hel d t hr eat ened her about cooper at i ng wi t h aut hor i t i es.

-4-


5/25

opt i on concei ved by the pr osecut or s f orar guabl y j ust i f yi ng t he f i l i ng of a 5K1 mot i oni n Pacheco' s case and r espondi ng i n good f ai t ht o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ener get i c suggest i on.

On August 19, 2011, t he government f i l ed t he agr eed- upon

mot i on i n t he r ecr ui t er ' s case, st at i ng t hat , i f t he case had gone

t o t r i al , i t woul d have had a wi t ness t est i f y t hat he or she had

conspi r ed wi t h t he r ecr ui t er t o i mpor t her oi n f r om t he Domi ni can

Republ i c. 2 On August 25, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced t he

al l eged r ecr ui t er t o 108 mont hs' i mpr i sonment , t he amount of t i me

est abl i shed i n hi s pl ea bar gai n.

On Sept ember 28, 2011, appr oxi matel y f i ve days bef ore

Pacheco' s sent enci ng hear i ng, AUSA J os A. Rui z Sant i ago, t he AUSA

i n char ge of t he cr i mi nal di vi si on, f i l ed a seal ed mot i on i nf or mi ng

t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he gover nment woul d not f i l e a 5K1. 1

mot i on. Two days l ater , Pacheco r equest ed a cont i nuance of t he

sent enci ng hear i ng and, i n a separate mot i on, r equest ed an order

compel l i ng t he government t o pr oduce the evi dence support i ng i t s

r ef usal t o f i l e t he pr omi sed 5K1. 1 mot i on.

On Oct ober 3, 2011, at t he sent enci ng hear i ng, t he

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on t o cont i nue t he sent enci ng af t er

hear i ng t he par t i es' r espect i ve posi t i ons r egar di ng t he cont r over sy

sur r oundi ng t he 5K1. 1 mot i on. The di st r i ct cour t al so hear d t he

2 We, of cour se, pass no j udgment upon t he val ue t he di st r i ctcour t coul d have af f or ded t o such a mot i on i n t he al l egedr ecrui t er ' s case.

-5-


6/25

def ense' s ar gument s i n f avor of a l eni ent sent ence as expounded by

Assi st ant Feder al Publ i c Def ender J oanni e Pl aza Mar t nez ( "AFPD

Pl aza") . As wi l l be expl ai ned i n f ul l det ai l bel ow, i n t he mi dst

of what appear s t o be a f ast - paced and t ense exchange wi t h sai d

counsel , t he di st r i ct cour t asked Pacheco i f she had anyt hi ng t o

say. Pacheco argues t hat , gi ven t he back and f ort h between t he

j udge and her at t or ney, as wel l as her emot i onal l y al t er ed st at e,

she di d not under st and she was bei ng addr essed i ndi vi dual l y or t hat

she was bei ng i nvi t ed t o speak on her own behal f . She t hus argues

t hat r esent enci ng i s r equi r ed because she was not unequi vocal l y

af f or ded t he r i ght t o al l ocut e.

The di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat Pacheco' s appl i cabl e

gui del i ne r ange f or sentenci ng was 46 t o 57 mont hs' i mpr i sonment

and t hr ee t o f i ve year s of super vi sed r el ease. The di st r i ct cour t ,

however , sentenced her t o 36 mont hs' i mpr i sonment and thr ee years

of super vi sed r el ease. Mor eover , t he day af t er sent enci ng, t he

j udge mot u propi o dropped t he sent ence t o 24 mont hs' i mpr i sonment

and t wo year s of super vi sed r el ease. We t ake each i ssue i n t ur n.

II. Analysis

A. The request for a continuance

As s t at ed above, sever al days bef or e t he sent enci ng, t he

gover nment f i l ed a mot i on announci ng t hat i t woul d not f i l e a

5K1. 1 mot i on. I t expl ai ned t hat Pacheco onl y agr eed t o cooper at e

once i t was cer t ai n she woul d not have t o t est i f y, and cont ended

-6-


7/25

t hat her pr evi ous r ef usal t o cooper at e had r esul t ed i n t he

gover nment of f er i ng t he r ecr ui t er a r educed pl ea, whi ch he

accept ed. Two days af t er t he mot i on was f i l ed, Pacheco r equest ed

a cont i nuance of t he sent enci ng hear i ng. Pacheco t hen r equest ed an

order t o compel t he government t o pr oduce the i nf ormat i on i n

suppor t of i t s asser t i on t hat she di d not pr ovi de subst ant i al

assi st ance. The r equest expl ai ned t hat t he gover nment ' s new

posi t i on was cont r ar y t o ever ythi ng Pacheco had agr eed t o wi t h t he

AUSA r egardi ng t he f i l i ng of a 5K1. 1 mot i on.

At t he sent enci ng hear i ng, AFPD Pl aza f ai l ed t o convi nce

t he di st r i ct cour t of t he pr obabl e ut i l i t y of a cont i nuance. AFPD

Pl aza t hen shi f t ed gear s and ar gued t hat , i f t her e woul d be no

5K1. 1 downward depart ur e, t he cour t coul d consi der Pacheco' s

cooperat i on f or a downward var i ance as suppor t ed by t he ar gument s

set f or t h i n t he Sentenci ng Memorandum. 3 AFPD Pl aza i nsi st ed on a

cont i nuance so t hat she coul d bet t er devel op her argument s

r egar di ng t he mi t i gat i ng f act or s i n Pacheco' s case.

I n her br i ef bef or e t hi s cour t , Pacheco posi t s t hat she

needed the cont i nuance t o pr oper l y i nvest i gat e t he gover nment ' s

asser t i ons and expl ai n why her cooper at i on had been subst ant i al .

She poi nt s out t hat one of t he f our cooper at i ng wi t nesses i n t he

3 Pacheco had not f i l ed t he Sent enci ng Memorandum bef ore t hehear i ng and r at her i nf or med t he di st r i ct cour t dur i ng t he hear i ngt hat she i nt ended t o f i l e i t . The di st r i ct cour t i mmedi at el yr equest ed t o see a hard copy of t he memorandum and r ead i t whi l et he hear i ng ensued.

-7-


8/25

t he r ecr ui t er ' s cr i mi nal case had r ecei ved a sent ence of seven

hour s under t he cust ody of t he Uni t ed St at es Marshal s f or

commi t t i ng si mi l ar conduct t o her s. Havi ng more t i me t o pr epar e

f or t he sent enci ng, she cl ai ms, woul d have al l owed her t o i nf or m

t he cour t of al l t he f act s pr i or t o sent enci ng.

We r evi ew t he deni al of a mot i on t o cont i nue a sent enci ng

hear i ng f or abuse of di scr et i on and onl y over t ur n when t he movant

suf f er ed subst ant i al pr ej udi ce. Uni t ed St at es v. Moor e, 362 F. 3d

129, 135 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . We assess each case i ndi vi dual l y and may

consi der any number of f act ors. See i d. ( we may consi der a number

of f act or s i ncl udi ng "t he movant ' s pr of er r ed [ si c] r easons f or

needi ng t he cont i nuance, t he amount of t i me necessar y f or ef f ect i ve

pr epar at i on, t he amount of t i me pr evi ousl y avai l abl e f or

pr epar at i on, t he extent t o whi ch t he movant has cont r i but ed t o hi s

pr edi cament , t he pr obabl e ut i l i t y of a cont i nuance, t he ext ent of

t he i nconveni ence t o ot her s of a cont i nuance, and t he l i kel i hood of

i nj ust i ce or unf ai r pr ej udi ce t o t he movant f r om a deni al of a

cont i nuance") .

We see no abuse of di scr et i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deci si on to go f or war d wi t h the sent enci ng. 4 Absent t he government

4 Even t hough Pacheco ar gues i n her br i ef t hat AFPD Pl aza and AUSAMar t i n had r eached an agr eement r egar di ng t he f i l i ng of a 5K1. 1mot i on, Pacheco does not devel op a br each of cont r act argument .She i nst ead f ocuses on t he f act t hat a cont i nuance was r equi r edbecause t he gover nment ' s al l eged vol t e- f ace caught her of f guar d,and t he gover nment ' s st at ed r easons f or not f i l i ng t he 5K1. 1mot i on were f al se. Dur i ng oral argument , we pr essed Pacheco' s

-8-


9/25

act ual l y movi ng f or a 5K1. 1 downward depar t ur e, no amount of

i nf ormat i on Pacheco woul d have gathered coul d have al l owed t he

cour t t o gr ant such a depar t ur e f or subst ant i al assi st ance. I n

f act , dur i ng t he hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t asked AFPD Pl aza t wi ce

whet her she coul d ci t e t o a si ngl e case that woul d al l ow i t t o, as

t he j udge put i t , " f act or i nt o a 5K1, " and she conceded she coul d

not . That i s not sur pr i si ng gi ven t hat "[ a] subst ant i al assi st ance

depar t ur e can be gr ant ed onl y i f t he government moves f or one. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Anonymous, 629 F. 3d 68, 72 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( ci t i ng

Wade v. Uni t ed St ates, 504 U. S. 181 ( 1992) ) .

Al so, t he di st r i ct cour t was awar e of t he f act t hat t he

gover nment had f i l ed t he i nf or mat i ve mot i on i n t he r ecr ui t er ' s

case. Even i f i t was not awar e of t he exact wor di ng of t he mot i on

or what sent ences t he ot her al l eged cooper at or s i n t hat case

r ecei ved, t he cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n not post poni ng

t he sent enci ng because awar eness of t hose det ai l s s t i l l woul d not

have al l owed i t t o sent ence Pacheco as i f t he government had

r equest ed a downwar d var i ance f or subst ant i al assi st ance. Pacheco

f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t he pr obabl e ut i l i t y of a cont i nuance gi ven

t hat t he i nf or mat i on she sought , even i f i t demonst r at ed t o t he

counsel r egar di ng t he br each of cont r act t heor y. Even t houghcounsel af f i r med a br each of cont r act had t aken pl ace, he qui ckl yr edi r ect ed t he di scussi on t o t he need f or a cont i nuance i n l i ght oft he gover nment ' s new posi t i on. We wi l l t her ef or e r est r i ct ouranal ysi s t o t he cont i nuance i ssue and not pur sue t he spect er of abr each of cont r act cl ai m.

-9-


10/25

di st r i ct cour t t hat Pacheco had pr ovi ded subst ant i al assi st ance,

woul d not have al l owed t he di st r i ct cour t t o pr oceed as i f a

5K1. 1 mot i on had been f i l ed. As Pacheco concedes, t he onl y actor

t hat can ascer t ai n whet her t he assi st ance was subst ant i al enough t o

warr ant a 5K1. 1 mot i on i s t he government .

Second, Pacheco cannot show t hat she was unabl e t o br i ef

t he cour t on her argument s r egardi ng t he appr opr i ate sent ence

because she i n f act had her Sentenci ng Memor andum r eady and t he

j udge was abl e t o r ead i t and consi der i t at t he hear i ng. At no

poi nt di d Pacheco argue t hat she was not abl e t o compl ete her

Sentenci ng Memorandum on t i me or t hat she needed more t i me t o

compl et e i t . Pacheco has t hus f ai l ed t o show t hat she suf f er ed

i nj ust i ce or unf ai r pr ej udi ce by t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ref usal t o

cont i nue the sent enci ng hear i ng.

Thi r d, t o t he ext ent t hat Pacheco cl ai ms prej udi ce f r om

i nsuf f i ci ent t i me t o set t he r ecor d st r ai ght about t he al l eged

f al se st at ement s of t he gover nment r egar di ng t he r ecr ui t er

benef i t t i ng f r omher i ni t i al r el uctance t o t est i f y agai nst hi m, she

i s mi st aken. The gover nment s t at ed i t s posi t i on i n i t s i nf or mat i ve

mot i on and Pacheco denounced i t s f al si t y bot h i n her wr i t t en

opposi t i on and at t he sent enci ng hear i ng. Thus, she had a f ai r

oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge the gover nment ' s s t at ement s and vi gor ousl y

di d so. We see no abuse of di scret i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

-10-


11/25

deci si on t o pr oceed wi t h sent enci ng at t hat j unct ur e. We now

pr oper l y t ur n t o Pacheco' s chal l enge of t he sent ence.

B. The imposition of a term of imprisonment

Pacheco ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mposed a pr i son

t er m because i t was under t he i ncor r ect i mpr essi on t hat , i n t he

absence of a 5K1. 1 mot i on, i t had i t s hands t i ed and coul d not

consi der her ef f or t s t o cooperat e wi t h t he gover nment .

Even t hough i t was not unt i l r ecent l y that "we j oi n[ ed]

ot her ci r cui t s i n hol di ng t hat , i n det er mi ni ng t he appr opr i at e

sent ence wi t hi n t he gui del i nes, or i n var yi ng f r omt he gui del i nes,

a sent enci ng cour t has di scr et i on t o consi der t he def endant ' s

cooper at i on wi t h the gover nment as an 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) f act or ,

even i f t he gover nment has not [ f i l ed a] 5K1. 1 mot i on f or a

downward depart ur e, " Uni t ed St ates v. Landr n- Cl ass, 696 F. 3d 62,

66 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , i t i s cl ear f r om t he t r anscr i pt of t he

sent enci ng hear i ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was f ul l y awar e t hat , i n

i mposi ng t he sent ence, i t had t he di scr et i on t o consi der Pacheco' s

wi l l i ngness t o cooper at e. The t r anscr i pt i ndi cat es t hat , when AFPD

Pl aza i nsi st ed t hat t he cour t consi der Pacheco' s cooper at i on when

i mposi ng a sent ence, t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed mor e t han once t hat

i t di d not f eel const r ai ned i n r el at i on t o t he t ype of i nf or mat i on

i t coul d consi der :

THE COURT: Ar gue your var i ance. You want me t ovar y t he sent ence?

MS. PLAZA: Of cour se, Your Honor .

-11-


12/25

THE COURT: That ' s what you have t o concent r at eon.

MS. PLAZA: I ' m goi ng t o concent r at e on t hat ,but what I ' m sayi ng t o t he Cour t i s t hat i ft he cour t i s goi ng t o not consi der t he

cooper at i on - -

THE COURT: I can consi der everyt hi ng.

MS. PLAZA: Ok.

THE COURT: But br i ngi ng her oi n i nto t he Uni t edSt at es i s a bi g t i me cr i me, and she has t oser ve t i me f or t hat . I ' m sor r y.

. . . .

MS. PLAZA: Si nce t he Cour t seems t o be - - Yourhonor , t her e ar e ot her f act or s t o t ake i nt oconsi der at i on. But gi ven t he Cour t ' spr esent at i on at t he Change f o Pl ea hear i ng, i tl eads me to bel i eve that t he Cour t woul d onl yconsi der r el easi ng my cl i ent i f a 5K mot i onhad been f i l ed. I t hi nk t hat i s of cour se t heCour t ' s pr er ogat i ve, but I t hi nk that ' s notdemanded of sect i on 3553( a) f or t he mi ni mal l ysuf f i ci ent sent ence. And I t hi nk my cl i ent hasal l t he f actor s on her behal f . I t shoul d beconsi dered by the Cour t .

THE COURT: I l ooked at your Sent enci ngMemorandum, and I amconsi der i ng i t .

. . . .

MS. PLAZA: . . . But t he def endant ' s at t empt st o cooper at e can be t aken i nt o consi der at i on.And I ci t e i n my memorandum cases t hat sayt hat t he Cour t can use t hat i nf or mat i on i f notf or a 5K r educt i on, but f or ot her - -

THE COURT: You hear d t hat I was goi ng t oconsi der t he var i ance.

( emphasi s added) .

-12-


13/25

We t hi nk i t i s suf f i ci ent l y cl ear t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

under st ood i t had di scr et i on t o consi der Pacheco' s at t empt s t o

cooper at e and, i n f act , never deni ed havi ng di scr et i on t o consi der

i t . But havi ng di scr et i on t o consi der somet hi ng does not ent i t l e

a def endant t o f or ce t he di st r i ct cour t t o f act or t he i ssue bei ng

consi der ed i nt o i t s f i nal deci s i on. I t i s evi dent f r om t he

t r anscr i pt t hat , al t hough t he cour t was wi l l i ng t o i mpose a

sent ence t hat was si gni f i cant l y l ower t han what t he Gui del i nes

r ecommended and sai d i t coul d consi der t he cooper at i on, i t al so

consi der ed t he char ged of f enses t o be suf f i ci ent l y ser i ous t o

warr ant i mpr i sonment . We see no abuse of di scr et i on i n t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s choi ce t o i mpose a t er m of i mpr i sonment .

C. The opportunity to allocute

The t r anscr i pt of t he sentenci ng hear i ng i ndi cat es an

escal at i ng t ensi on bet ween AFPD Pl aza and t he di st r i ct cour t j udge

when t he j udge at t empted t o pr oceed wi t h sent enci ng and AFPD Pl aza

at t empt ed t o ar gue i n f avor of a l eni ent sent ence f or Pacheco.

I mmedi at el y bef or e and i mmedi at el y af t er put t i ng an end t o a f ast -

paced di scussi on wi t h AFPD Pl aza by t el l i ng sai d counsel t o "shut

up, " t he di st r i ct cour t asked Pacheco i f t her e was anythi ng she

-13-


14/25

want ed t o say. 5 The r el evant por t i on of t he hear i ng t r anspi r ed as

f ol l ows:

PLAZA: Wel l , Your Honor . . . [ s] he wasvul ner abl e, and she was used f or t hi s cr i mi nal

vent ur e. And t he pur pose -

THE COURT: Li st en, I ' ve hear d you enough.Anyt hi ng you want t o say, ma' am?"

PLAZA: Your Honor , I ask t he Cour t -

THE COURT: I ' maski ng you t o shut up. Anythi ngyou want t o say, ma' am? Anyt hi ng?

THE DEFENDANT: ( Shaki ng head f r om si de t os i de. )

THE COURT: Anythi ng? [ AUSA] Mar t i n, el se?

MARTI N: Nothi ng, Your Honor .

THE COURT: Ver y wel l .

We r evi ew de novo a sent enci ng cour t ' s compl i ance wi t h

Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32( i ) ( 4) ( A) . Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Rodr guez,

5 Dur i ng or al ar gument , we r equest ed t hat t he par t i es i nvest i gat ewhet her t he sent enci ng hear i ng had been r ecorded. The governmentf i l ed a mot i on st at i ng t hat per sonnel at t he di st r i ct cour t hadi ndi cat ed t hat , when a cour t r epor t er i s pr esent , pr oceedi ngs arenot r ecor ded usi ng FTR ( For TheRecor d) . Subsequent l y, Pacheco' scounsel f i l ed a mot i on and a copy of an emai l i n whi ch managementper sonnel at t he di st r i ct cour t t ol d hi m t hat no FTR r ecor di ngexi st ed, but whet her or not t he cour t r epor t er deci ded t o make ani nf or mal r ecor di ng, was " a per sonal pr ef er ence out si de [ t hei r ]

j ur i sdi ct i on. " Pacheco' s counsel r equest ed t hat we i ssue an or dert o compel t he cour t r epor t er who t r anscr i bed t he sent enci ng hear i ngi n t hi s case to r eveal whet her she had r ecor ded t he hear i ng. Wedeni ed t he mot i on. I f no FTR ( t he onl y r ecordi ng met hod aut hor i zedt o r ecor d hear i ngs at t he di st r i ct cour t ) exi st s because a cour tr epor t er was pr esent , we wi l l onl y r evi ew t he of f i ci al t r anscr i ptof t he hear i ng.

-14-


15/25

617 F. 3d 581, 605 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Bur gos- Andj ar , 275 F. 3d 23, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) .

Pur suant t o Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32( i ) ( 4) ( a) ( i i ) , bef or e

i mposi ng i t s sent ence, a cour t must "addr ess t he def endant

per sonal l y i n or der t o per mi t t he def endant t o speak or pr esent any

i nf or mat i on t o mi t i gat e t he sent ence. " I n Gr een v. Uni t ed St at es,

365 U. S. 301 ( 1961) , t he Supr eme Cour t r ecogni zed t he l ong hi st ory

of t he common l aw r i ght of al l ocut i on. I t st at ed t hat , "[ t ] aken i n

t he cont ext of i t s hi st or y, t her e can be l i t t l e doubt t hat t he

dr af t er s of Rul e 32[ ] i nt ended t hat t he def endant be per sonal l y

af f or ded t he oppor t uni t y t o speak bef or e i mposi t i on of sent ence. "

I d. at 304. Al t hough t he Supr eme Cour t i n Gr een r evi ewed a

t r anscri pt i t descri bed as bei ng, "unl i ke a pl ay, [ because i t ] i s

unaccompani ed wi t h st age di r ect i ons whi ch may t el l t he si gni f i cant

cast of t he eye or t he nod of t he head, " t he Cour t f ocused on what

t he t r anscr i pt expl i ci t l y i ndi cat ed. I d. at 304- 05. I t f ound t hat

"[ t ] he si ngl e per t i nent sent ence - - t he t r i al j udge' s quest i on ' Di d

you want t o say somethi ng?' - - may wel l have been di r ected t o t he

def endant , " and r ef used t o specul at e whet her i t was addr essed t o

counsel or t o anyone el se who may have been present at t he

hear i ng. 6 I d. at 304.

6 The Cour t i n Gr een gave si gni f i cant wei ght t o t he f act t hat t hechal l enge had been r ai sed sever al year s af t er t he sent enci ng t ookpl ace. We do not t hi nk, however , t hat t he Cour t woul d have comeout i n f avor of Gr een had t he ar gument been r ai sed ear l i er gi vent he obvi ous wei ght t he Cour t al so gave t o " [ t ] he si ngl e per t i nent

-15-


16/25

The Supreme Cour t i n Gr een i nst r uct ed cour t s t o, "as a

mat t er of good j udi ci al admi ni st r at i on, unambi guousl y addr ess

t hemsel ves t o the def endant [ and t o] . . . l eave no room f or doubt

t hat t he def endant has been i ssued a per sonal i nvi t at i on t o speak

pr i or t o sent enci ng. " I d. at 305. Thi s ci r cui t has al so

consi st ent l y r equest ed t hat cour t s compl y wi t h Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32

by "addr ess[ i ng] t he def endant [ s] per sonal l y and al l ow[ i ng] [ t hem]

t o speak on al l t opi cs. " Bur gos- Andj ar , 275 F. 3d at 29 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We have al so r ecogni zed t hat t he r i ght

may be sat i sf i ed by af f or di ng def endant s t he "f unct i onal

equi val ent " of what i s requi r ed by t he r ul e i n quest i on. Uni t ed

St at es v. Al ba Pagn, 33 F. 3d 125, 129 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . To achi eve

f unct i onal equi val ency, " t he cour t , t he pr osecut or , and t he

def endant must at t he ver y l east i nt eract i n a manner t hat shows

cl ear l y and convi nci ngl y t hat t he def endant knew he had t he r i ght

t o speak on any subj ect of hi s choosi ng pr i or t o t he i mposi t i on of

hi s sent ence. " I d.

Pacheco argues t hat she began sobbi ng uncont r ol l abl y

af t er she hear d t he di st r i ct cour t st at e ear l i er i n t he hear i ng

t hat i mpor t i ng her oi n i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es i s a cr i me t hat must

ent ai l a t er mof i mpr i sonment . She cl ai ms that her cr yi ng, and t he

f act t hat she was not addr essed i ndi vi dual l y, and t he f act t hat she

was not f ormal l y i nf ormed of her r i ght t o make a st atement on her

sent ence. " Gr een, 365 U. S. at 304.

-16-


17/25

own behal f , pr event ed her f r om addr essi ng t he cour t . Pacheco,

however , cl ear l y acknowl edges i n her br i ef t hat she was addr essed

per sonal l y. Pacheco f ur t her ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

pause t o ask her what she meant t o say by shaki ng her head.

Whi l e Pacheco makes several argument s i n her at t empt t o

i nj ect ambi gui t y i nt o t he t r anscr i pt of t he hear i ng, we ar e

unper suaded. The t r anscr i pt r ef l ect s t hat Pacheco was af f or ded t he

r i ght t o speak on any topi c of her choosi ng when t he di st r i ct cour t

addr essed her per sonal l y (as she concedes) and t wi ce, i f not

t hr i ce, asked i f she want ed t o say anythi ng. Our cases onl y

r equi r e t hat def endant s be addr essed per sonal l y and be i nvi t ed t o

speak on any t opi c bef ore sent enci ng. Nei t her t he Supr eme Cour t

nor t hi s cour t has ever r equi r ed t hat a sent enci ng cour t empl oy a

speci f i c set of wor ds t o not i f y a def endant of hi s or her r i ght t o

al l ocut e. To t he ext ent Pacheco may be argui ng t hat aski ng whether

she had anyt hi ng t o say i s not t echni cal l y an i nvi t at i on t o speak,

we pl ai nl y di sagr ee and r ef use t o go down t he semant i cs r abbi t

hol e.

Pacheco ar gues she was sobbi ng uncont r ol l abl y and may not

have even underst ood what was bei ng sai d t o her . She f urt her

argues t hat she mi ght have even been shaki ng her head f r omsi de t o

si de i n r esponse t o somet hi ng ot her t han t o t he quest i on bei ng

posed t o her . We decl i ne Pacheco' s i nvi t at i on t o specul at e as to

possi bl e al t er nat i ve meani ngs of her act i ons. Pacheco was

-17-


18/25

personal l y asked a quest i on and she i mmedi atel y shook her head f r om

si de t o si de. Gi ven t he cont ext , we bel i eve t he onl y r easonabl e

i nt er pr et at i on of t hat act i on i s t hat she had not hi ng t o say to t he

cour t i n r esponse t o i t s quest i on, "Do you have anythi ng t o say,

ma' am?" Even t hough i t woul d have been i deal gi ven t he

ci r cumst ances, we do not t hi nk i t was necessar y f or t he cour t t o

el i ci t or even f or ce a ver bal r esponse f r omPacheco. Fur t her , once

she decl i ned t o speak, t he di st r i ct cour t had no obl i gat i on t o

i nsi st t hat she sei ze t he oppor t uni t y t o speak. I n sum, we f i nd no

mer i t t o Pacheco' s cl ai m t hat she was not af f or ded t he r i ght t o

al l ocut e.

III. Conclusion

For t he r easons set f or t h above, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s sent ence.

Affirmed.

-Dissenting Opinion Follows-

-18-


19/25

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge, Dissenting. Al t hough I concur wi t h

t he maj or i t y t hat t he di st r i ct cour t acted wi t hi n i t s di scret i on by

denyi ng Pacheco' s mot i on f or a cont i nuance, I concl ude t hat Pacheco

was depr i ved of her oppor t uni t y t o al l ocut e bef or e sent enci ng. I

woul d theref ore vacat e t he sent ence and remand f or a resent enci ng

t hat woul d gi ve her t hat oppor t uni t y.

The Supreme Cour t has emphasi zed bot h t he hi st or i cal

pr ovenance and t he subst ant i al i mpor t ance of per mi t t i ng " [ t he]

def endant , per sonal l y, t o have t he oppor t uni t y t o pr esent t o t he

cour t hi s pl ea i n mi t i gat i on. " Gr een v. Uni t ed St at es, 365 U. S.

301, 304 ( 1961) . I n t he wor ds of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t ,

[ w] i t h hi st or i cal r oot s i n t he common l aw, t heoppor t uni t y t o pl ead f or mercy i s anot herpr ovi si on i n a pr ocedur al body of l aw desi gnedt o enabl e our system of j ust i ce t o met e outpuni shment i n t he most equi t abl e f ashi onpossi bl e, t o hel p ensur e t hat sent enci ng i spar t i cul ar i zed and r ef l ect s i ndi vi dual

ci r cumst ances.Uni t ed St at es v. Bar nes, 948 F. 2d 325, 328 ( 7t h Ci r . 1991) ; see

al so Uni t ed St at es v. Bur gos- Andj ar , 275 F. 3d 23, 28 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) ( not i ng "our l ong t r adi t i on of gi vi ng al l def endant s t he

r i ght t o di r ect l y addr ess t he cour t and pl ead f or mer cy") . We have

accor di ngl y descr i bed t he r i ght of al l ocut i on as "sacr osanct . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Genao- Snchez, 525 F. 3d 67, 71 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

Ther ef or e, " [ t ] he bur den of compl yi ng wi t h t he r i ght of

al l ocut i on[ ] r est s wi t h t he cour t and not t he def endant , " and t he

cour t bear s t he r esponsi bi l i t y of "mak[ i ng] sur e t he def endant

-19-


20/25

under st ands t hat [ she] has t he r i ght t o say anythi ng [ she] want s

bef or e sent ence i s i mposed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Vasquez, 216 F. 3d

456, 458- 59 ( 5t h Ci r . 2000) .

Her e, t he recor d shows t hat f or much of t he sent enci ng

hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t and def ense counsel engaged i n a

cont ent i ous exchange r egardi ng a number of i ssues. The maj or i t y

not es t he "escal at i ng t ensi on" bet ween t he t r i al j udge and counsel ,

compounded by counsel ' s conf used and r epet i t i ve pr esent at i on and

t he t r i al j udge' s i ncr easi ng i mpat i ence wi t h her ar gument s. Towar d

t he end of t he hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s vexat i on r eached i t s

peak. I n r esponse t o counsel ' s concer n wi t h t he cour t " i nf or mal l y

[ t el l i ng] t he cl i ent t he Cour t i s goi ng t o i mpose j ai l t i me, " t he

t r i al j udge sai d: "Wai t a mi nut e. Do you honest l y t hi nk t hat a

case i nvol vi ng her oi n shoul d be al l owed wi t hout j ai l t i me?" Af t er

t hi s st at ement was i nt er pr et ed f or her , Pacheco asser t s ( and t he

government does not di sput e) t hat she began weepi ng. 7

Thi s f r aught di al ogue cul mi nat ed i n t he passage t he

maj or i t y quot es, wher e t he di st r i ct cour t t ol d counsel t hat he had

"hear d [ her ] enough" bef ore aski ng Pacheco whether she had anyt hi ng

she want ed t o cont r i but e. When counsel per si st ed, t he cour t

7 As t he maj or i t y not es, we cannot l i st en t o t he r ecor di ng of t hesent enci ng hear i ng, whi ch mi ght have gi ven us a bet t er f eel f or t heat mospher i cs of t he exchanges. But t he t r anscr i pt speaks f ori t sel f . To t he extent t hat we have any doubt s about t he i mpact oft he words on the page on Pacheco' s r i ght t o al l ocut e, we mustr esol ve t hem i n Pacheco' s f avor . See Uni t ed St at es v. De Al baPagn, 33 F. 3d 125, 129 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

-20-


21/25

"ask[ ed her ] t o shut up" bef or e tur ni ng t o Pacheco and i nqui r i ng

once agai n whether she had anyt hi ng t o say.

On the basi s of t he exchanges bet ween t he j udge and the

def endant , t he maj or i t y concl udes t hat "Pacheco was per sonal l y

asked a quest i on and she i mmedi atel y shook her head f r om si de to

si de. Gi ven t he cont ext , we bel i eve t he onl y r easonabl e

i nt er pr et at i on of t hat act i on i s t hat she had not hi ng t o say to t he

cour t i n r esponse t o i t s quest i on, ' Do you have anythi ng t o say,

ma' am?' "

I st r ongl y di sagr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y' s eval uat i on of t he

cont ext of t he supposed al l ocut i on. One must l ook cl osel y at t he

t hr ee i nqui r i es r el i ed upon by t he maj or i t y:

Fi rs t I nqui ry:

THE COURT: Li st en, I ' ve hear d you enough [ r ef er r i ng t o

Pacheco' s at t orney] . Anyt hi ng you [ meani ng t he def endant ] want t o

say, ma' am?

Second I nqui r y:

PLAZA: Your Honor , I ask t he Cour t - -

THE COURT: I ' m aski ng you [ r ef er r i ng t o Pacheco' s

at t orney] t o shut up. Anyt hi ng you [ meani ng t he def endant ] want t o

say, ma' am? Anyt hi ng?

THE DEFENDANT: ( Shaki ng head f r om si de t o si de. )

Thi r d I nqui r y:

THE COURT: Anythi ng? [ AUSA] Mar t i n, el se?

-21-


22/25

MARTI N: Nothi ng, Your Honor .

THE COURT: Ver y wel l .

So f ar as we can t el l f r om t he t r anscr i pt , t hese

exchanges occur i n a mat t er of seconds. I n t he f i r st i nqui r y, t he

cour t pr ef aces i t s i nvi t at i on t o t he def endant t o speak wi t h t he

admoni t i on t o Pl aza t hat he has hear d enough f r om her . I n t he

second i nqui r y, t he cour t pr ef aces i t s i nvi t at i on by l i t er al l y

aski ng her at t or ney t o "shut up. " The def endant r esponds t o t hi s

i nvi t at i on by shaki ng her head f r om si de t o si de. The t hi r d

i nqui r y consi st s of one wor d f r om t he cour t , "Anyt hi ng?",

appar ent l y i n r esponse t o t he def endant shaki ng her head. But i t

i s uncl ear f r om t he t r anscri pt whet her t hi s t hi r d i nqui r y was

di r ect ed t o t he def endant or t he pr osecut or . Si nce i t i s Mar t i n

who responds " Not hi ng, Your Honor , " i t appear s t hat t he i nqui r y was

di r ect ed at hi m.

I n a f or mal sense, t he j udge i nvi t ed t he def endant t o

speak bef ore he i mposed a sent ence. But i t i s hard t o i magi ne a

mor e uni nvi t i ng i nvi t at i on. The t went y- year ol d def endant , al r eady

i n t ear s, has j ust hear d t he j udge t el l her at t or ney i n r api d

success i on t hat he has "hear d you enough" and "shut up" bef ore she

shakes her head f r om si de t o si de, si gnal i ng t hat she has not hi ng

t o say. Yet t he maj or i t y says t hat " t he onl y r easonabl e

i nt er pr et at i on" of t he def endant shaki ng her head " i s t hat she had

not hi ng t o say t o t he cour t i n r esponse t o i t s quest i on. "

-22-


23/25

To t he cont r ar y, I bel i eve t hat t he f ar mor e r easonabl e

i nt er pr et at i on of t hi s scenar i o i s t hat t he def endant , even i f she

di d have somet hi ng t o say t o t he j udge, was so i nt i mi dat ed by hi s

di spl ay of anger and i mpat i ence wi t h her at t or ney t hat she coul d

not summon t he courage t o speak. The j udge and t he def endant di d

not " i nt er act i n a manner t hat shows cl ear l y and convi nci ngl y t hat

t he def endant knew [ she] had a r i ght t o speak on any subj ect of

[ her ] choosi ng pr i or t o t he i mposi t i on of sent ence. " Uni t ed St at es

v. De Al ba Pagn, 33 F. 3d 125, 129 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( emphasi s

added) . To t he extent t hat t her e i s any uncer t ai nt y about t he

def endant ' s st at e of mi nd at t hi s cri t i cal j unctur e, t hose

"[ d] oubt s shoul d be r esol ved i n t he def endant ' s f avor . " I d. The

maj or i t y has f ai l ed t o do t hat .

I t i s al l t oo easy f or j udges, envel oped i n t he cour t r oom

by the aut hor i t y of t hei r of f i ce, t o under est i mat e t he i mpact of

t hei r demeanor and words on t he part i es bef ore t hem. That i s why

j udges, even when provoked by counsel , must al ways measur e t hei r

manner and t hei r wor ds car ef ul l y. That di d not happen her e, wi t h

ser i ous consequences f or t he def endant ' s r i ght t o al l ocut e.

As t he Second Ci r cui t has expl ai ned, t he Rul e on

al l ocut i on "demands t hat each def endant be al l owed a meani ngf ul

r i ght t o expr ess r el evant mi t i gat i ng i nf or mat i on bef or e an

at t ent i ve and r ecept i ve di st r i ct j udge. " Uni t ed St at es v. Li , 115

F. 3d 125, 133 ( 2d Ci r . 1997) . Thus, "cr eat [ i ng] an at mospher e t hat

-23-


24/25

obvi ousl y r ender ed i t di f f i cul t f or [ t he def endant ] t o pr esent an

ef f ect i ve and pot ent i al l y per suasi ve al l ocut i on" may r esul t i n

depr i vat i on of t he r i ght . I d. ; see al so Bar nes, 948 F. 2d at 331

( "Because t he sent enci ng deci si on i s a wei ght y r esponsi bi l i t y, t he

def endant ' s r i ght t o be hear d must never be reduced t o a

f or mal i t y. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Spar r ow, 673 F. 2d 862, 865 ( 5t h Ci r .

1982) ( "Even wher e t he j udge sat i sf i es t he speci f i cs of Rul e 32, we

must st i l l assure our sel ves t hat t he compl i ance was not mer el y i n

f or m. " ) . Her e, t her e was at best onl y f or mal compl i ance wi t h Rul e

32. I n subst ance, however , t he cour t ' s handl i ng of t he sent enci ng

hear i ng cr eat ed a host i l e at mospher e t hat was i ncompat i bl e wi t h t he

meani ngf ul exer ci se of t he def endant ' s r i ght t o al l ocut e.

I wi sh t o be cl ear on one f i nal poi nt . My di ssent shoul d

not be r ead as a cri t i ci sm of t he t r i al j udge' s conduct t owar d

Pacheco gener al l y. I ndeed, he di spl ayed mar ked sol i ci t ude t owar d

her i n ot her cont exts, such as at t he change of pl ea hear i ng, and

i n ur gi ng t he government t o of f er her a downward depar t ur e. He was

unquest i onabl y sympathet i c t o her pl i ght as a young mother of t wo,

wi t h a t hi r d chi l d on t he way. Hi s i r e was di r ect ed at counsel ,

not Pacheco hersel f . Hi s i nt emperate words were br i ef , a moment ary

l apse of cont r ol . But t hat l apse came at an i noppor t une t i me, wi t h

ser i ous consequences f or t he def endant ' s r i ght t o speak t o the

cour t bef or e sent enci ng.

-24-


25/25

Because I cannot agr ee t hat Pacheco was gi ven a

meani ngf ul oppor t uni t y t o al l ocut e, I woul d vacat e her sent ence and

r emand so t hat she can be sent enced i n compl i ance wi t h the

st r i ctur es of Rul e 32( i ) ( 4) ( A) ( i i ) . For t hese r easons, I

r espectf ul l y di ssent .

-25-

United States v. Pacheco, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Pacheco, 1st Cir. (2013)