06-2919-cr United States v. Liriano-Blanco
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
3 August Term, 2007
4 (Argued: September 5, 2007 Decided: December 11, 2007 5 Errata Filed: January 2, 2008) 6 Docket No. 06-2919-cr
7 -------------------------------------
8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
9 Appellee,
10 - v -
11 ARIEL LIRIANO-BLANCO,
12 Defendant-Appellant.
13 -------------------------------------
14 Before: WALKER, CALABRESI, and SACK, Circuit Judges.
15 Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction
16 and sentence in the United States District Court for the Northern
17 District of New York (Thomas J. McAvoy, Judge). Upon the
18 defendant's plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, which
19 included an appeal waiver by the defendant, to unlawfully
20 entering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and
21 (b)(2), the district judge declined to impose a non-Guidelines
22 sentence, because he thought that doing so was likely prohibited
23 by law. The court was, at the time of sentencing, under a
24 misimpression as to the defendant's ability to appeal his
25 sentence, which may have affected the severity of the sentence
26 that the court imposed. 1 Remanded in order to give the district court the
2 opportunity to reconsider the sentence.
3 CRAIG M. CRIST, Dreyer Boyajian LLP, 4 Albany, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
5 BRENDA K. SANNES, Assistant United 6 States Attorney (Edward P. Grogan, 7 Assistant United States Attorney, of 8 counsel), for Glenn T. Suddaby, United 9 States Attorney for the Northern 10 District of New York, Syracuse, NY, for 11 Appellee.
12 SACK, Circuit Judge:
13 On its face, this appeal raises the question of the
14 authority of a district court to sentence a defendant below the
15 range provided by the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the
16 "Guidelines") when so-called "fast-track" downward departures are
17 not available in the district. We cannot, however, reach the
18 substance of this issue, because, we conclude, the waiver of
19 appeal included in the plea agreement of the defendant, Ariel
20 Liriano-Blanco, is effective and bars us from doing so.
21 Nevertheless, because the district court appears to have
22 determined the sentence based, in part, on its misimpression,
23 uncorrected by the government, that he could appeal his sentence
24 to us, and because that misimpression may have affected the
25 severity of the sentence that the court imposed, we remand to the
26 district court to provide it with an opportunity to reconsider.
27 BACKGROUND
28 On December 16, 2005, Liriano-Blanco entered this
29 country illegally by walking from Canada to the United States at
2 1 an unauthorized border crossing at or near Champlain, New York.
2 His movements were detected by an intrusion device, which
3 notified the United States Border Patrol. A member of the Border
4 Patrol effected Liriano-Blanco's arrest.
5 On December 22, 2005, Liriano-Blanco was indicted in
6 the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
7 York on one count of unlawfully attempting to re-enter the United
8 States after being previously removed from the country following
9 his conviction of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On February 6, 2006, Liriano-Blanco
11 entered into a plea agreement with the government. In it, he
12 agreed, inter alia, to plead guilty to various charges against
13 him and to waive the right to appeal any sentence of sixty months
14 or less.
15 On the same day, the district court (Thomas J. McAvoy,
16 Judge) held a video-conference plea hearing.1 During the plea
17 colloquy, the court specifically addressed the appeal waiver
18 contained in the plea agreement, asking whether Liriano-Blanco
19 agreed to give up the right of appeal for any sentence of 60
20 months or less, whether he did so voluntarily, and whether he
21 understood the waiver when he agreed to it. Liriano-Blanco
22 answered "yes" to each of these questions. Tr. of Plea Hearing,
1 The district judge was in Binghamton, New York, while Liriano-Blanco and counsel for him and for the government were in Albany. Tr. of Plea Proceeding, Feb. 6, 2006.
3 1 Feb. 6, 2006, at 15-17. The court then accepted Liriano-Blanco's
2 guilty plea.
3 The Fast-Track Program
4 Underlying the sentencing issues the district court
5 then faced was the existence of the "early disposition," or
6 "fast-track," federal sentencing program. The program has
7 existed since 2003 when Congress "instructed the United States
8 Sentencing Commission to issue a policy statement authorizing a
9 downward departure pursuant to an early disposition program
10 authorized by the Attorney General." United States v. Mejia, 461
11 F.3d 158, 160 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation
12 marks omitted).
13 As directed by Congress, the Sentencing 14 Commission adopted U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 . . . 15 which provides that, "[u]pon motion of the 16 Government, the court may depart downward not 17 more than 4 levels pursuant to an early 18 disposition program authorized by the 19 Attorney General of the United States and the 20 United States Attorney for the district in 21 which the court resides.
22 Id. at 161 (emphasis added). At last count, the fast-track
23 program was in force in thirteen of the ninety-four federal
24 districts: Arizona; California (Central, Southern, Eastern, and
25 Northern districts); Idaho; Nebraska; New Mexico; North Dakota;
26 Oregon; Texas (Southern and Western districts); and the Western
27 District of Washington. Id. The fast-track program is not in
28 effect in the Northern District of New York.
29 Sentencing of Liriano-Blanco
4 1 The parties and the probation office made written
2 submissions to the district court with regard to Liriano-Blanco's
3 sentencing. The Probation Office calculated the Guidelines range
4 to be 57 to 71 months, based upon an offense level of 8, under
5 U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a), a 16 level enhancement under § U.S.S.G. §
6 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(I) based upon Liriano-Blanco’s prior felony
7 conviction, and a criminal history category of IV. Liriano-
8 Blanco argued, however, that a non-Guidelines sentence was
9 available and should be imposed "to avoid the disparity caused by
10 the existence of fast-track programs in other districts." Def.'s
11 Sentencing Mem., dated April 26, 2005 [sic], at Point II.A.
12 On May 8, 2006, some three months after Liriano-
13 Blanco's plea hearing, the district court conducted a brief
14 sentencing hearing. The court commented generally on non-
15 Guidelines sentencing in the district courts in illegal-reentry
16 cases. The court concluded:
17 [I]nstead of sentencing you today, we're 18 gonna look into those things, we're gonna 19 examine the new case law, I'm gonna take 20 under advisement the things I'm telling you 21 about today and then, fairly quickly, 22 hopefully within a couple weeks, we'll bring 23 you back and I'll hear arguments and I'll 24 sentence [you].
25 Tr. of Sentencing Hearing, May 8, 2006, at 6. The court made no
26 mention of the possibility of an appeal or of the appeal waiver
27 that was in force.
28 The sentencing hearing was reconvened on June 13, 2006.
29 At the outset, the district court said:
5 1 No matter which way I go in this case, . . . I am 2 gonna offer the other side a certificate of 3 appealability, so I will immediately sign 4 it. . . .[2] I would like to see what the Second 5 Circuit says about it. I know what other courts 6 and other Circuits say, but I would like guidance 7 from a non-Fast Track circuit.
8 Tr. of Sentencing Hearing, June 13, 2006, at 9.
9 The court then entertained argument from both sides.
10 Most of the discussion was about the disparity between the
11 Guidelines sentence for Liriano-Blanco and the lower Guidelines
12 sentence that would have been available to him had he crossed the
13 border into one of the fast-track jurisdictions instead of the
14 Northern District of New York.
15 Toward the end of the proceeding, the court expanded on
16 its introductory remarks about sentencing disparities and the
17 fast-track program.
18 Now, if I thought I could follow my own 19 individual predilections, if I could follow 20 my emotions and my heart, I would go down 21 four levels and say I'm gonna sentence him 22 there. But I don't think I can do 23 that. . . . That's what I did [when I sat by 24 designation] in Laredo, [Texas,] on two 25 separate occasions, and in Midland, [Texas,] 26 because they have the Fast Track Program. 27 Here, we don't have it. It does cause 28 disparity, but I think it is important that
2 We are not quite certain what the district court meant by "a certificate of appealability." Ordinarily, we use the term to refer to the certificate granted by a district court, circuit judge, or a justice that permits a person whose petition or application for habeas corpus relief has been denied by the district court to appeal it to the court of appeals. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Lozada v. United States, 107 F.3d 1011, 1015-16 (2d Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255, 260 (2d Cir. 1997).
6 1 Congress did incorporate that into The 2 [PROTECT] Act, and I think the First Circuit 3 made that call and was persuaded by that 4 precedent. I am persuaded by the way they 5 arrived at that.
6 Id. at 22-23. The district court then found Liriano-Blanco’s
7 offense level to be 21, and granted a departure from the
8 recommended criminal history level of IV to a category III. The
9 court calculated the resulting range to be 46 to 57 months and
10 sentenced Liriano-Blanco to a term of 46 months.
11 Shortly thereafter, the district court returned to the
12 issue of a possible appeal. "Hopefully, maybe, the Second
13 Circuit may disagree with me and be able to give a lesser
14 sentence when they send it back, but I don't know." Id. at 26-
15 27. "Both you [referring to Liriano-Blanco] and the Government
16 have the right to appeal this sentence under certain
17 circumstances. And the Court has already indicated it would
18 issue, if applied for, a certificate of appealability." Id. at
19 28. The court told Liriano-Blanco, finally, that he was required
20 "to file any appeal [he] . . . plan[ned] to take within 10 days
21 of the date of th[e] sentence." Id.
22 In fact, of course, Liriano-Blanco had consented to an
23 appeal waiver as part of his plea agreement. No one present
24 corrected the district court's misimpression, despite the fact
25 that the court referred to its expectation of an appeal
26 repeatedly, and the possibility of an appeal appeared to be an
27 integral part of the judge's reasoning in arriving at a
28 sentencing decision.
7 1 Liriano-Blanco's Appeal
2 On June 20, 2006, Liriano-Blanco filed a notice of
3 appeal. On October 6, 2006, after his efforts to consolidate the
4 appeal with that of one José Duran-Ferreira -- who had traveled
5 into the United States, and was arrested, with Liriano-Blanco --
6 had failed, he filed his brief.
7 In the interim, on August 22, 2006, we decided Mejia.
8 We concluded: "We join other circuits in holding that a district
9 court's refusal to adjust a sentence to compensate for the
10 absence of a fast-track program does not make a sentence
11 unreasonable." Mejia, 461 F.3d at 164. We did not have before
12 us in Mejia, and did not address, the question presented in
13 Liriano-Blanco's case: whether the district court has the
14 authority to impose a non-Guidelines sentence in response to the
15 fast-track sentencing disparity if it deems such a reduced
16 sentence to be warranted.
17 On October 13, 2006, the government moved to dismiss
18 Liriano-Blanco's appeal on the ground that he had waived his
19 right to appeal in the plea agreement. On December 22, 2006, a
20 panel of this Court denied the motion. Our order reads:
21 The Government moves to dismiss defendant- 22 appellant's case on the ground that Liriano- 23 Blanco entered into a clear and enforceable 24 appellate waiver, and that he knowingly and 25 voluntarily acknowledged his waiver of his 26 right to appeal. Upon due consideration, the 27 Government's motion is DENIED. Liriano- 28 Blanco argues that the district court's 29 comments during sentencing regarding the 30 availability of appeal amounted to a de facto
8 1 striking and/or rejection of the appeal 2 waiver as contained in the plea agreement. 3 We have not addressed precisely this issue. 4 Cf. United States v. Fisher, 232 F.3d 301, 5 304 (2d Cir. 2000).
6 United States v. Liriano-Blanco, 2d Cir., No. 06-2919-cr, Order
7 dated Dec. 22, 2006.3
8 DISCUSSION
9 We note at the outset that if Liriano-Blanco were able
10 to lodge an appeal challenging the district court's perception of
11 its power to issue downward departures without fast-track
12 authorization, such an appeal would not be frivolous. Although
13 we concluded in United States v. Mejia that a sentencing court is
14 not required to account for the fast-track disparity by imposing
15 a non-Guidelines sentence, Mejia, 461 F.3d at 164, we did not
16 foreclose the possibility that a court has the legal authority to
17 impose, in its discretion, a non-Guidelines sentence on that
18 basis. Perhaps it does not, under an extension of the Mejia
19 rationale or otherwise. But the answer to that question is not a
20 foregone conclusion. The issue for us now, therefore, is whether
21 we can reach this question despite the appeal waiver to which
22 Liriano-Blanco consented as part of his plea agreement.
3 Meanwhile, this Court ordered counsel for Duran-Ferreira to respond to the government's similar motion to dismiss Duran- Ferreira's appeal. Our order in Liriano-Blanco was not brought to the attention of the panel to which the motion was assigned. The motion to dismiss was granted by another panel on February, 16, 2007. United States v. Duran-Ferreira, 2d Cir., No. 06-3003- cr, Order dated Feb. 16, 2007.
9 1 "Plea agreements that include a waiver of a defendant's
2 right to appeal his conviction and sentence are a relatively
3 recent phenomenon. This Court has repeatedly upheld the validity
4 of such waivers, with the obvious caveat that such waivers must
5 always be knowingly, voluntarily, and competently provided by the
6 defendant." United States v. Gomez-Perez, 215 F.3d 315, 318 (2d
7 Cir. 2000) (citing cases). We have assumed that we have the
8 power to examine the circumstances surrounding the plea agreement
9 to assure ourselves that these conditions are met. See id.
10 Liriano-Blanco does not dispute, however, that he
11 entered his plea agreement knowingly, voluntarily, and
12 competently. What he does challenge is the validity of that
13 agreement in light of the district court's stated assumption that
14 he did have a right to appeal.
15 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(j)(1)(B),
16 "[a]fter sentencing--regardless of the defendant's plea--the
17 court must advise the defendant of any right to appeal the
18 sentence." But "'Congress seems to have understood'" -- indeed
19 it is difficult to believe it did not understand -- "'that advice
20 as to a right to appeal a sentence need be given only when such a
21 right exists. [And a] right might not exist either because it
22 was never created in the first place, or because it was created
23 and then waived.'" United States v. Fisher, 232 F.3d 301, 303
24 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Tang, 214 F.3d 365, 369
25 (2d Cir. 2000)). Indeed, Tang urged sentencing judges "not to
26 give 'unqualified advice concerning a right to appeal'" in "cases
10 1 where a waiver of appellate rights is of the type we have ruled
2 enforceable and [said wavier] has been fully explained to the
3 defendant at the time of the plea." Id. at 303 (quoting Tang,
4 214 F.3d at 370).
5 It is, nonetheless, not uncommon for a district judge
6 to notify a defendant at sentencing of his or her right to
7 appeal, momentarily unaware that that right has been waived.
8 This may result from Rule 32(j)(1)(B)'s requirement of notice
9 coupled with the fact that the waiver of appeal contained in a
10 plea agreement may be of little or no relevance to the sentencing
11 proceeding. And the time that usually elapses between a plea
12 hearing and sentencing -- in this case, more than three months --
13 makes such an error all the more likely. Cf. id. at 302
14 (observing that "[s]ome four months" elapsed between the district
15 court's taking of the guilty plea, at which it discussed the
16 appeal waiver, and the sentencing hearing, at which it mistakenly
17 advised the defendant of his right to appeal).
18 As a general matter, however, "a district judge's
19 post-sentencing advice suggesting, or even stating, that the
20 defendant may appeal" does not "render[] ineffective" an
21 "otherwise enforceable waiver of appellate rights." Id. at 304
22 (concurring with the conclusion of the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth,
23 and Tenth Circuits). "If enforceable when entered, the waiver
24 does not lose its effectiveness because the district judge gives
25 the defendant post-sentence advice inconsistent with the waiver."
26 Id. at 304-05 (footnote omitted). In Fisher, as in this case,
11 1 "[n]o justifiable reliance has been placed [by the defendant] on
2 such advice." Id. at 305.
3 Liriano-Blanco's appeal waiver is therefore effective
4 to bar his appeal of the district court's conclusion that a non-
5 Guidelines sentence is unavailable despite the "fast track"
6 disparity.
7 That is not the end of the matter, however. Our
8 concern regarding mistaken statements by a sentencing judge about
9 the defendant's right to appeal has typically focused on the
10 possibility that such bad advice may "'precipitate some needless
11 appeals,'" id. at 303 (quoting Tang, 214 F.3d at 370). Perhaps
12 there has been concern, too, about false expectations of the
13 possibility of appeal engendered in those who are being
14 sentenced. In this case, however, there is more at stake than
15 unnecessary proceedings and false hope. The mistake as to
16 Liriano-Blanco's right to appeal may have directly affected the
17 length of the sentence imposed on him. The court explicitly
18 expressed its view that a more lenient sentence might be
19 appropriate but that it harbored doubts about whether under the
20 applicable law it could impose that sentence. The court then
21 chose not to depart from the Guidelines and imposed a sentence of
22 46 months. The district court relied on the possibility of
23 appeal in choosing the higher sentence, apparently unaware that
24 Liriano-Blanco had waived the ability to pursue such an appeal.
25 Heightening our concern in Liriano-Blanco's case is the
26 fact that, notwithstanding his awareness of this reliance, the
12 1 Assistant United States Attorney who appeared at Liriano-Blanco's
2 sentencing did nothing to disabuse the district court of its
3 misapprehension that an appeal by Liriano-Blanco remained
4 possible. In at least two of the cases in which we have
5 discussed the obligation of district courts to advise defendants
6 of their right to appeal, we have noted prosecutors' obligations
7 at sentencing under a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.
8 As we said in Fisher:
9 We will continue to expect prosecutors to 10 alert district judges at sentencing to the 11 existence of appellate waivers, see Tang, 214 12 F.3d at 370, both to provide an opportunity 13 to clarify any ambiguity as to the scope of 14 such waivers, and to afford district judges 15 an opportunity to fashion any advice 16 concerning possible appellate rights in light 17 of the terms of the waiver. 18 Fisher, 232 F.3d at 305. Our cases have not imposed the same
19 duty on defense counsel, and we have never suggested that the
20 silent presence of defense counsel excuses the government's
21 counsel's failure to speak up under these circumstances.4
4 That may reflect "the special role played by the American prosecutor . . . ." Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1999) ("[T]he United States Attorney is 'the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.'" (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935))). It may also be deemed preferable not to require defense counsel, who may one day challenge an appeal waiver, to acknowledge the waiver's effect in open court, but instead place responsibility for acknowledging the existence of an appeal waiver on the party that intends to enforce it.
13 1 Plea agreements are generally treated as contracts.
2 Matters outside of the bargain between the parties are not
3 covered. In past cases we have thus held that despite a plea
4 agreement, a sentencing decision could be reviewed on appeal if
5 it was reached in a manner that the plea agreement did not
6 anticipate. In United States v. Yemitan, 70 F.3d 746 (2d Cir.
7 1995), for example, we held that "a sentence tainted by racial
8 bias could not be supported on contract principles, since neither
9 party can be deemed to have accepted such a risk or be entitled
10 to such a result as a benefit of the bargain." Id. at 748.
11 Along these lines, we think, Liriano-Blanco cannot be "deemed to
12 have accepted [the] risk" that the judge sentencing him would do
13 so based on the judge's mistaken impression that his sentencing
14 decision could be appealed. Although we cannot decide Liriano-
15 Blanco's appeal on the merits, then, we conclude that the waiver
16 does not explicitly or implicitly bar us from returning this
17 matter to the district court, so that, having been made aware
18 that Lirirano-Blanco cannot appeal its decision, it may
19 resentence him if it sees fit to do so.
20 We do not know what the district court might have done
21 had it been corrected at the time of sentencing as to its
22 mistaken view that Liriano-Blanco was entitled to appeal the
23 decision of law upon which the court based the sentence. While
24 we will not suggest in advance our views on a matter not before
25 us, we do note, as we did at oral argument, the possibility that
26 if the court had departed from the Guidelines range and imposed a
14 1 sentence below 46 months, and left it to the government, not
2 Liriano-Blanco, to appeal, that could have provided a means for
3 the district court to obtain this Court's decision on the
4 unsettled issue which the district court found not only
5 troubling, but perhaps determinative. We cannot be sure.
6 Rather than guess as to what the district court would
7 have done had it been informed of the appeal waiver, we remand
8 the case to the district court for it to reconsider what further
9 steps, if any, it thinks warranted in light of Liriano-Blanco's
10 inability to appeal from the court's ruling.
11 CONCLUSION
12 For the reasons stated above, the district court’s
13 sentence is reversed and the case remanded for further
14 consideration of the matter in accordance with this opinion.