United States v. Munoz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: April 26, 1996
• Docket: 95-2133
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


No. 95-2133



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                  JOHN JAIRO MUNOZ,



                                Defendant, Appellant.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Sara Rapport on brief for appellant.
            ____________

            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran,
            __________________                            ___________________

        Assistant United  States Attorney, and Stephanie  S. Browne, Assistant
                                               ____________________

        United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


____________________



                                    April 26, 1996

                                 ____________________



Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant John Jairo Munoz Estrada
                 __________



            pled guilty to illegal reenty after deportation, in violation



            of 8 U.S.C.   1326.  He appeals from his sentence on the sole



            ground  that the district court  erred in denying  him a one-



            level  reduction  pursuant  to  U.S.S.G.     3E1.1(b)(2)  for



            "timely  notifying authorities  of his  intention to  enter a



            plea  of  guilty."   We vacate  his  sentence and  remand for



            resentencing.



                 "A defendant bears the  burden of proving entitlement to



            decreases   in  the   offense   level,   including   downward



            adjustments for  acceptance  of  responsibility.    Once  the



            sentencing  court has ruled against him on such an issue, the



            defendant faces an uphill battle."  United States v. Morillo,
                                                _____________    _______



            8  F.3d 864,  871 (1st  Cir. 1993).   "The  clearly erroneous



            standard  . .  .  guides appellate  review of  district court



            determinations under section 3E1.1(b)." Id.
                                                    ___



                 "The   timeliness  of  the   defendant's  acceptance  of



            responsibility is  . . . context specific." U.S.S.G.   3E1.1,



            comment.  (n.6).   To  qualify for  the additional  one-level



            reduction  under     3E1.1(b)(2), the  defendant  "must  have



            notified  authorities of  his intention  to enter  a plea  of



            guilty at a sufficiently  early point in the process  so that



            the government  may avoid preparing  for trial and  the court



            may schedule its calendar efficiently." Id.
                                                    ___


-2-



In denying the  one-level reduction for timeliness,  the



            district court  focused on  the court's ability  to "allocate



            its resources efficiently,"   3E1.1(b)(2), rather than on the



            government's expenditure of resources in preparing for trial.



            (The government  concedes in its  brief that "[t]here  was no



            direct  evidence  on  the  record that  the  prosecution  had



            actually prepared for trial -- outside of preparing responses



            to  defense counsel's boilerplate  motions.")1  Specifically,
                                                         1



            the court  emphasized that Munoz  did not plead  guilty until



            after the case was placed on the court's trial calendar.



                 Wasting judicial resources is, of course, a valid ground



            for denying  the extra  one-level reduction.   Here, however,



            the  case was placed on  the court's trial  calendar on March



            22, 1995.  Munoz did not  actually enter his plea until April



            5, 1995.   The language of    3E1.1(b)(2) refers to  the date



            that  the defendant "notif[ies]  authorities of his intention



            to  enter a plea  of guilty," not  the date that  the plea is



            entered.   In this case,  notification occurred on  March 16,



            1995, the date on which the parties filed their executed plea



            agreement with  the court.  Therefore,  notification occurred



            before  the  district court  placed  the  case on  the  trial



                                
            ____________________



               1We do not suggest that work by prosecutors in  responding
               1

            to pretrial motions cannot, in many circumstances, constitute

            "preparing for  trial" within  the purview of    3E1.1(b)(2).

            We  merely  point out  that,  here, the  government  gave the

            district  court very little to work with, and, in all events,

            the court did not  premise its denial of the  added reduction

            on the government's preparatory work.



                                         -3-



calendar.  It was clear error for the district  court to rule



            that Munoz's acceptance of responsibility was untimely on the



            ground  that it  occurred after  the case  was placed  on the



            court's trial calendar.



                 The sentence  is vacated  and the  case is  remanded for
                                  _______                    ________



            resentencing.  At the new sentencing hearing, either side may



            proffer relevant information concerning the government's work



            in preparing the case up to the time of the plea agreement.


-4-