United States v. Cazares , 60 F. App'x 223 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 7 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 01-2180
v. (D.C. No. CR-00-736-JC)
(D. New Mexico)
PEDRO R. CAZARES,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Accordingly, on
January 10, 2003, this court ordered the case submitted without oral argument.
Defendant Pedro R. Cazares (“Cazares”) appeals from the denial of his
motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This court exercises jurisdiction under 28
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
U.S.C. § 1291, and affirms the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
Cazares is a citizen of Mexico who has resided in the United States for over
twenty years. He became a permanent resident alien in 1987. On May 5, 2000,
Cazares was arrested for selling cocaine to undercover police officers and federal
agents from his place of business. He was released on May 8, 2000 to a third-
party custodian after posting bond. At the time of his arrest, Cazares’ net worth
was over $500,000.
On May 26, 2000, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging
Cazares with one count of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2;
and six counts of distribution of less than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On September 6, 2000,
Cazares entered into a plea agreement with the United States and pleaded guilty to
one count of distribution of less than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The plea agreement
contained the following waiver provision:
[T]he defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal any sentence within
the guideline range applicable to the statute of conviction as determined by
the court after resolution of any objections by either party to the
presentence report to be prepared in this case, and the defendant
specifically agrees not to appeal the determination of the court in resolving
any contested sentencing factor. In other words, the defendant waives the
-2-
right to appeal the sentence imposed in this case except to the extent, if
any, that the court may depart upwards from the applicable sentencing
guideline range as determined by the court. The defendant also waives his
right to challenge his sentence or the manner in which it was determined in
any collateral attack, including, but not limited to, a motion brought under
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, except to the extent, if any, that
the court may depart upwards from the applicable sentencing guideline
range.
On May 4, 2001, Cazares filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Cazares argued that he entered the plea agreement without being informed of his
right to seek assistance from the Mexican consulate as provided by the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, art. 36, 21 U.S.T. 77-78, 101,
596 U.N.T.S. 261 (“Vienna Convention”). The district court denied Cazares’
motion on May 30, 2001 and sentenced him to thirty-seven months of
imprisonment. Cazares now appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
The United States argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over Cazares’
appeal from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because Cazares
waived his right to appeal in the plea agreement. See United States v. Rubio, 231
F.3d 709, 711 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that this court lacks jurisdiction over an
appeal brought by a defendant who has effectively waived his right to appeal in a
plea agreement). Specifically, the United States argues that the holding in United
-3-
States v. Elliott, 264 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2001) is controlling and mandates the
dismissal of Cazares’ appeal. In Elliott, this court held that the defendant waived
his right to appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he
had explicitly waived his “right to contest his conviction and sentence . . . in any
direct or collateral appeal.” 264 F.3d at 1172-74. The court reasoned that
because the “denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is an attempt to ‘contest
a conviction on appeal,’” the defendant’s appeal fell “within the plain language of
the waiver provision” in his guilty plea. Id. at 1174.
The plea agreement in this case is clearly distinguishable from the plea
agreement in Elliott. Under the plain language of the plea agreement, Cazares
explicitly waived his “right to appeal any sentence.” There is no language in the
plea agreement, however, that could be interpreted as a waiver of Cazares’ right
to appeal his conviction. Accordingly, because Cazares retained his right to
appeal his conviction under the plain language of the plea agreement, this court
has jurisdiction to consider his appeal.
B. Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
This court reviews the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a
guilty plea for abuse of discretion and “will not reverse absent a showing that the
court acted unjustly or unfairly.” United States v. Graves, 106 F.3d 342, 343
(10th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). The district court’s finding of a factual
-4-
basis for the guilty plea is reviewed for clear error. Id.Cazares argues that he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because his
rights under the Vienna Convention were violated when he was not informed of
his right to seek assistance from the Mexican consulate prior to the entry of his
plea. The law is unsettled as to whether the Vienna Convention gives rise to any
individually enforceable rights. See United States v. Minjares-Alvarez, 264 F.3d
980, 986 (10th Cir. 2001); United States v. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d 1237, 1255
(10th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, we need not resolve this issue in this case. Even
assuming that the Vienna Convention creates individually enforceable rights, and
that the withdrawal of a guilty plea is an available remedy for a violation of the
Vienna Convention, Cazares has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by
the denial of such rights. Cf. Minjares-Alvarez, 264 F.3d at 986-87 (holding that
even if the defendant’s rights under the Vienna Convention were violated when he
was not informed of his right to access and consult his national consulate, he
failed to show that the violation caused him prejudice). While Cazares alleges
that he was unfamiliar with the criminal justice system in the United States,
Cazares had resided in the United States for over twenty years and had prior
criminal cases brought against him. Moreover, Cazares does not assert on appeal
that he was innocent of the crime to which he pleaded guilty nor did he object to
the factual assertions of the underlying offense contained in the presentence
-5-
report. Finally, while Cazares was released on bond he did not attempt to contact
the Mexican consulate. Accordingly, Cazares has failed to show he was
prejudiced by the government’s failure to inform him of his right to seek
assistance from the Mexican consulate. Cazares, therefore, is not entitled to any
relief as a result of a Vienna Convention violation.
Alternatively, Cazares argues that the failure to inform him of his right to
seek assistance from the Mexican consulate as provided under the Vienna
Convention constitutes a fair and just reason for permitting the withdrawal of his
guilty plea. See Graves, 106 F.3d at 343 (discussing the factors the court
considers in deciding whether the defendant has shown a “fair and just reason”
for the withdrawal of his guilty plea). Pursuant to Rule 32(e) 1 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, a district court may permit a defendant to withdraw
his guilty plea prior to sentencing “if the defendant shows any fair and just
reason” for such action. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e); see also Graves, 106 F.3d at 343.
1
Effective December 1, 2002, Rule 32(e) was amended and incorporated
into Rule 11(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 11(d) reads as
follows:
A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere:
(1) before the court accepts the plea, for any reason or no reason; or
(2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if:
(A) the court rejects a plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(5); or
(B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for
requesting the withdrawal.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d).
-6-
This court considers the following when determining whether the defendant has
demonstrated a fair and just reason: “(1) defendant’s assertion of innocence; (2)
resulting prejudice to the government; (3) defendant’s delay in filing the
withdrawal motion; (4) inconvenience to the court; (5) defendant’s assistance of
counsel; (6) knowledge and voluntariness of the plea; and (7) resulting waste of
judicial resources.” Graves, 106 F.3d at 343. Cazares does not maintain his
innocence on appeal. Moreover, allowing Cazares to withdraw his guilty plea
after he delayed for eight months prior to moving for its withdrawal, would
prejudice the government by the delayed re-institution of its burden to locate and
subpoena trial witnesses. Further, Cazares was represented by counsel and has
not alleged that this representation was inadequate or ineffective.
While Cazares does not explicitly address the Graves factors on appeal, he
argues that because he is a foreign national, he lacks an understanding of the
criminal justice system in the United States. Cazares furthers argues that his lack
of understanding would be remedied by the assistance of the Mexican consulate.
This court, therefore, will construe Cazares’ arguments as a challenge to the plea
on the grounds it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Although Cazares
alleges a lack of understanding of the criminal justice system in the United States,
Cazares fails to allege the particular aspects of his plea that were entered into
unknowingly. After reviewing the record, this court concludes that there is
-7-
nothing in the record indicating Cazares’ plea was not knowing and voluntary.
Finally, because Cazares does not assert his innocence, permitting him to
withdraw his guilty plea would waste judicial resources. Accordingly, the district
court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Cazares failed to
demonstrate a fair and just reason to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this court affirms the district court’s denial
of Cazares’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-8-