United States v. Sanchez-Colberg , 856 F.3d 180 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 15-2522
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Appellee,
    v.
    CHRISTIAN SÁNCHEZ-COLBERG,
    Defendant, Appellant.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
    [Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Howard, Chief Judge,
    Torruella and Barron, Circuit Judges.
    William S. Maddox on brief for appellant.
    Tiffany V. Monrose, Assistant United States Attorney, Rosa
    Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, and Mariana E.
    Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
    Division, on brief for appellee.
    May 8, 2017
    HOWARD, Chief Judge.    Christian Sánchez-Colberg pleaded
    guilty to two drug- and weapons-related charges; in exchange, the
    government dismissed others.       Sánchez now appeals his sentence,
    attacking its procedural and substantive reasonableness.          Although
    Sánchez's plea agreement does not bar this appeal, his challenges
    ultimately fail on their merits.        We affirm.
    I. Background
    Puerto Rico law enforcement officers encountered Sánchez
    and his codefendant while searching abandoned apartments in an
    unrelated    case.    The    officers    found   Sánchez   with   cocaine,
    marijuana, drug ledgers, cash, ammunition, and two handguns -- one
    of which was modified to fire automatically.1        Sánchez eventually
    entered guilty pleas to possessing marijuana with the intent to
    distribute, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), and possessing
    firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation
    of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A)(i). In exchange, the government agreed
    to dismiss other charges -- one of which carried a mandatory 30-
    year-minimum sentence.      See 
    id.
     § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii).
    In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that the
    appropriate guidelines sentencing range for the marijuana charge
    1 Because Sánchez pleaded guilty, we draw the facts "from the
    plea agreement, the change-of-plea colloquy, the Pre-Sentence
    Investigation Report ('PSR'), and the transcript of the sentencing
    hearing." United States v. Cruz-Vázquez, 
    841 F.3d 546
    , 547 n.1
    (1st Cir. 2016).
    - 2 -
    was 0-6 months' incarceration, and agreed to recommend a sentence
    "at the higher end."      The firearms charge carried a statutorily
    required consecutive incarcerative term of at least 60 months, and
    the parties identified the guidelines range as that statutory
    minimum.    See 
    id.
     § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); U.S.S.G. §2K2.4(b) (2014).
    On that count, however, the plea agreement contemplated an above-
    guidelines sentence: Sánchez could argue for as few as 96 months,
    and the government could "request a . . . term of imprisonment of
    up to one hundred and fifty-six (156) months."            The agreement
    further provided that Sánchez would waive his right to appeal, so
    long   as   the   court   sentenced   him   "according   to   its   terms,
    conditions, and recommendations."
    At the sentencing hearing, Sánchez asked the judge to
    impose a 6-month sentence on the marijuana charge and a 96-month
    sentence on the firearms charge (102 months total). The government
    also recommended a 6-month sentence on the marijuana charge, but
    requested a 144-month sentence for the firearms (150 months total).
    The district court accepted the parties' recommendation on the
    marijuana charge, but found insufficient "the sentence that both
    the government and the defense recommended" on the firearms charge.
    The court then sentenced Sánchez to the top of the range specified
    in the plea agreement for the § 924(c) violation: 156 months (for
    a total incarcerative sentence of 162 months).           Sánchez did not
    - 3 -
    object at the sentencing hearing; in this timely appeal, however,
    he argues that the sentence was unreasonable.
    II. Analysis
    Before addressing the merits, we first determine whether
    this appeal falls within the waiver of appeal to which Sánchez
    agreed.     See United States v. Betancourt-Pérez, 
    833 F.3d 18
    , 21
    (1st Cir. 2016).        It does not.
    A. Waiver
    A plea agreement's appeal-waiver provision "is valid if
    it was knowingly and voluntarily executed, and if enforcement would
    not   result   in   a   miscarriage     of     justice."   United   States    v.
    Santiago-Burgos, 
    750 F.3d 19
    , 22 (1st Cir. 2014).             "But '[e]ven a
    knowing and voluntary appeal waiver only precludes appeals that
    fall within its scope.'"         
    Id. at 22-23
     (alteration in original)
    (quoting United States v. McCoy, 
    508 F.3d 74
    , 77 (1st Cir. 2007)).
    When determining such a provision's scope, "we rely on basic
    contract interpretation principles, construing the agreement where
    possible to give effect to every term and phrase, and construing
    any ambiguities in favor of allowing the appeal to proceed."                 Id.
    at 23 (citations omitted).
    Sánchez's plea agreement contains this appeal-waiver
    provision: "Defendant hereby agrees that if this Honorable Court
    accepts this Plea and Forfeiture Agreement and sentences him
    according to its terms, conditions, and recommendations, Defendant
    - 4 -
    waives and surrenders his right to appeal the judgment and sentence
    in this case."
    The   agreement's   "Sentence    Recommendation"      provision
    reads, in its entirety:
    As to [the marijuana count] the parties agree to
    recommend a sentence of imprisonment at the higher end
    of the above referenced guideline calculation. As to
    [the firearms count] the defendant can request a
    consecutive term of imprisonment of ninety-six (96)
    months and the Government can request a consecutive term
    of imprisonment of up to one hundred and fifty-six (156)
    months. The parties agree that any recommendation by
    either party for a term of imprisonment below or above
    the stipulated sentence recommendation constitutes a
    material breach of the Plea and Forfeiture Agreement.
    Sánchez argues that the appeal-waiver provision does not
    apply because the district court sentenced him to 156 months on
    the firearms count, but he requested 96 months and the government
    sought only 144 months -- so the court did not sentence him
    "according to" the parties' "recommendations."             The government
    counters that, because it was permitted to ask for a 156-month
    sentence on the firearms count, Sánchez's ultimate sentence "was
    within   the   range   contemplated   by   the   parties    in   the   plea
    agreement," and he was thus sentenced according to the agreement's
    terms and conditions.
    "Plea agreements should be given their plain meaning."
    United States v. Ocasio-Cancel, 
    727 F.3d 85
    , 89 (1st Cir. 2016).
    But here, the meaning of Sánchez's plea agreement is ambiguous.
    The appeal-waiver provision bars any appeal from a sentence in
    - 5 -
    accordance     with   the   agreement's     "terms,   conditions,   and
    recommendations."     (emphasis added).     The underlined language is
    not meaningless: because we "constru[e] the agreement . . . to
    give effect to every term and phrase," Santiago-Burgos, 750 F.3d
    at 23, we do not read the appeal-waiver provision's inclusion of
    "recommendations" as mere surplusage.2          See United States v.
    Garcia, 
    698 F.2d 31
    , 36 (1st Cir. 1983) (rejecting a plea-agreement
    construction that would "render the language mere surplusage")
    (quoting United States v. Bowler, 
    585 F.2d 851
    , 854 (7th Cir.
    1978)).
    The agreement's ambiguity lies in the meaning of the
    phrase "its . . . recommendations."       The phrase could simply refer
    to any sentence within the "stipulated sentence recommendation"
    contained within the agreement's four corners.          But the phrase
    could also refer more narrowly to the parties' actual requests at
    sentencing for a term of imprisonment, so long as those requests
    are within the agreement's textually specified sentencing range.
    Cf. United States v. Ríos-Hernández, 
    645 F.3d 456
    , 459, 461-62
    (1st Cir. 2011) (construing "its . . . recommendations" to be
    limited by the parties' agreement to recommend a sentence at the
    2 This language distinguishes Sánchez's case from others in
    which we construed appeal-waiver provisions lacking such a term.
    See, e.g., United States v. Morales-Arroyo, No. 15-1185, 
    2017 WL 1395753
    , at *1 (1st Cir. Apr. 19, 2017); Betancourt-Pérez, 833
    F.3d at 22.
    - 6 -
    lower end of the applicable guideline range). The phrase's meaning
    as used in the agreement is thus ambiguous.       And, because we
    construe plea-agreement ambiguity against the government, we hold
    that Sánchez's appeal is not within the appeal-waiver provision's
    scope, and accordingly proceed to the merits.    See United States
    v. Newbert, 
    504 F.3d 180
    , 185 (1st Cir. 2007).
    B. Sentencing Error
    Sánchez's sentencing-error arguments, however, fail on
    their merits.   We review these claims in two steps: "we first
    determine whether the sentence imposed is procedurally reasonable
    and then determine whether it is substantively reasonable."   Cruz-
    Vázquez, 841 F.3d at 549 (quoting United States v. Clogston, 
    662 F.3d 588
    , 590 (1st Cir. 2011)).
    1. Procedural reasonableness
    Sánchez contends that his sentence was procedurally
    unreasonable because the district court "did not articulate a basis
    for exceeding the recommendations of the parties."     See Gall v.
    United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007) (procedural error includes
    "failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence").      Because
    Sánchez did not preserve this argument by raising it below, we
    review only for plain error.      See United States v. Bermúdez-
    - 7 -
    Meléndez, 
    827 F.3d 160
    , 164 (1st Cir. 2016).3    There was no error
    here, plain or otherwise.
    "To satisfy its burden of explanation, the sentencing
    court need do no more than identify the main factors behind its
    decision."     
    Id.
       The sentencing court met that obligation here.
    As acknowledged by Sánchez in his brief, the court determined,
    among other findings, that the parties' sentencing requests did
    "not reflect the seriousness of the offense," which included
    possession of "two powerful weapons[,] one of which is modified to
    shoot automatically," in addition to "the ammunition . . . [drugs],
    drug ledgers, and drug paraphernalia."    This explanation sufficed
    to meet the procedural-reasonableness requirement.       See 
    id. at 164-65
     (finding no procedural error when explanation reflected
    defendant's possession of an "impressive array of munitions,"
    including an assault rifle, "in close proximity to a trove of
    illegal drugs").
    One final note on procedural reasonableness: to the
    extent that Sánchez asserts that the court erred by not explaining
    why it rejected the parties' requested sentences, the law does not
    support him.    "Although a sentencing court typically has a duty to
    3 Sánchez urges that United States v. Guzman-Fernandez, 
    824 F.3d 173
     (1st Cir. 2016), requires abuse-of-discretion review for
    unpreserved procedural-reasonableness claims. Guzman-Fernandez,
    however, dealt with a preserved claim.     
    Id. at 176
     ("Guzman's
    counsel 'objected' . . . .") (alteration omitted).
    - 8 -
    explain why it selected a particular sentence, it has 'no corollary
    duty to explain why it eschewed other suggested sentences.'"                               
    Id. at 165
     (quoting United States v. Vega-Salgado, 
    769 F.3d 100
    , 104
    (1st Cir. 2014).
    2. Substantive reasonableness
    Having     established          that       the        sentence       was     not
    procedurally         unreasonable,           we     turn       to       its     substantive
    reasonableness.          Once       again,    Sánchez       did     not       object   below.
    Consistent with our recent cases, and favorably to Sánchez, we
    assume arguendo that abuse-of-discretion review applies.                                   See
    Cruz-Vázquez, 841 F.3d at 549 & n.2.                     We nevertheless reject the
    substantive-reasonableness claim.
    "The     essence      of   appellate         review       for     substantive
    reasonableness is whether the sentence is the product of 'a
    plausible . . . rationale and a defensible result.'" United States
    v. Rivera-González, 
    776 F.3d 45
    , 51 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting United
    States v. Martin, 
    520 F.3d 87
    , 96 (1st Cir. 2008)). Sánchez argues
    that    his   sentence        was   substantively          unreasonable          because    he
    received a greater sentence than did his codefendant, even though
    there was no reason for the disparity.                     Though we may find cause
    for    concern   when     one       judge     sentences        "identically        situated
    defendants" differently, that is not the case here -- and Sánchez
    makes   no    effort     to    explain       why    he   and      his    codefendant       are
    - 9 -
    identically situated.   United States v. Reyes-Santiago, 
    804 F.3d 453
    , 467 (1st Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
    In fact, Sánchez posits a distinction between the two
    men: he claims that his codefendant -- not he -- possessed the
    machine gun, because the label on the evidence bag containing the
    machine gun did not list Sánchez's name.       The record, however,
    supports a finding that Sánchez possessed the machine gun.4     The
    plea agreement memorializes that Sánchez "did knowingly possess
    [both] firearms," which Sánchez acknowledged by initialing the
    paragraph describing the two weapons.   And later, during the plea
    colloquy, the district court advised Sánchez that the firearms
    count alleged that he "knowingly possessed firearms," described
    both weapons in detail, and asked Sánchez "is that what you did?
    . . . Is that what you're pleading guilty to?"      Sánchez replied
    "Yes."   Accordingly, because Sánchez has not demonstrated either
    that he and his codefendant were "identically situated" or that
    Sánchez was less culpable, his disparity argument fails.    See 
    id.
    ("We have routinely rejected disparity claims . . . because
    complaining defendants typically fail to acknowledge material
    4 There may be a hint of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
    argument in Sánchez's brief, but "[w]e normally do not consider
    such claims on direct appeal where . . . they were not first
    presented to the district court." United States v. Hallock, 
    941 F.2d 36
    , 43 (1st Cir. 1991).
    - 10 -
    differences between their own circumstances and those of their
    more leniently punished confederates.").
    Finally,     Sánchez      argues    that   his   sentence   on   the
    firearms count was substantively unreasonable insofar as the court
    varied   upward    from   the      guidelines    sentence.      As    Sánchez
    acknowledges,     however,   the    parties     themselves   recommended    an
    upwardly variant sentence.         It was not unreasonable for the court
    to impose a sentence within the parties' bargained-for range.              See
    Rivera-González, 776 F.3d at 52 (finding upwardly variant sentence
    substantively reasonable when "it produced the same aggregate
    period of incarceration to which the parties had previously agreed"
    in plea agreement).
    III. Conclusion
    For the reasons stated, we hold that the plea agreement
    does not bar this appeal, but we affirm the sentence.
    - 11 -