United States v. Bonefacio Lopez-Pacheco , 409 F. App'x 562 ( 2010 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________
No. 10-1695
________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BONEFACIO LOPEZ-PACHECO,
Appellant
________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 4-09-cr-00018-001)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
_______
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 13, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, GREENAWAY, JR., and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 22, 2010)
______
OPINION
______
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
I.
This case arose out of an incident that occurred at the federal penitentiary in
Lewisburg, Pa., where Bonifacio Lopez-Pacheco was an inmate. A correctional officer
stopped and searched Lopez-Pacheco as he left the dining hall. The officer discovered
concealed food under his armpits and on his waist. Lopez-Pacheco responded angrily, hit
the correctional officer in the chest, and had to be restrained by other officers after
attempting to hit him again.
Lopez-Pacheco was charged with simple assault of a correctional officer in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5). He pled guilty through an interpreter. At his
arraignment, the Magistrate Judge postponed sentencing until a presentence report could
be issued. Upon review of the presentence report in April 2009, Lopez-Pacheco told his
attorney that he was innocent and that he did not remember pleading guilty to the simple
assault charge.
Because this raised the issue of the defendant’s competency, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons conducted a two-week psychological evaluation of Lopez-Pacheco and issued its
findings on July 28, 2009. The report concluded that “Lopez-Pacheco is presently
competent to proceed,” that he “has the present ability to understand the nature and the
consequences of the proceedings against him and the ability to assist properly in his
defense,” and that “Lopez-Pacheco does not suffer from a mental illness.” App. at 70.
2
At Lopez-Pacheco’s competency hearing, the Magistrate Judge ruled that Lopez-Pacheco
possessed the competency to proceed.
At his sentencing hearing before the Magistrate Judge, Lopez-Pacheco alleged that
at arraignment he did not understand what was happening and that his attorney misled
him into pleading guilty. The Magistrate Judge found Lopez-Pacheco to be not credible
and denied his request to withdraw his earlier plea of guilty. He sentenced him to serve a
consecutive four-month term in prison. The District Court affirmed and Lopez-Pacheco
appeals. 1
II.
We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Huff, 873 F.2d 709, 712 (3d Cir. 1989). A defendant may withdraw a
court-accepted guilty plea if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting
the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). The guilty plea cannot be withdrawn on a
“whim.” United States v. Jones, 336 F.3d 245, 252 (3d Cir. 2003).
This court considers three factors when examining a motion to withdraw a guilty
plea: “(1) whether the defendant asserts his innocence; (2) whether the government would
be prejudiced by his withdrawal; and (3) the strength of the defendant’s reason to
withdraw the plea.” Huff, 873 F.2d at 712. Defendants moving to withdraw a guilty plea
must offer facts to show why they initially pled guilty, and why they now assert
1
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This court has
appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3
innocence. United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 811, 818 (3d Cir. 2001). “Bald assertions
of innocence are insufficient to permit a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.” Jones,
336 F.3d at 252. Since the Government does not argue that it would be prejudiced by a
withdrawal of the plea, only the first and third factors warrant analysis.
Lopez-Pacheco’s assertion of innocence fails to satisfy the first part of the test.
Absent additional support it constitutes a mere “bald assertion” of innocence. In
addition, the reasons presented by Lopez-Pacheco for his initial guilty plea contradict
each other and undermine his credibility. He argued before the Magistrate Judge that he
did not remember entering a guilty plea, and also that he merely followed his attorney’s
directions. As the Government notes, “it is a mystery how Lopez-Pacheco, purportedly
unable in April 2009 to remember even entering his guilty plea, was able in December
2009 to remember that his counsel had pressured him to do so.” Appellee Br. at 18. The
Magistrate Judge denied Lopez-Pacheco’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He noted
that a defendant “has no absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea,” citing United States
v. Isaac, 141 F.3d 477, 485 (3d Cir. 1998). App. at 23. He concluded that Lopez-
Pacheco’s claimed lack of memory is not credible. Moreover, in a comprehensive
opinion, the District Court noted the inconsistencies in Lopez-Pacheco’s arguments. It
also discussed the history of the proceedings and Lopez-Pacheco’s awareness of the
results of the guilty plea he entered. Additionally, the Court noted that the psychiatric
evaluation failed to suggest incompetence on the part of Lopez-Pacheco.
4
Lopez-Pacheco has not asserted strong reasons to withdraw the guilty plea. He
alleges that his case for withdrawal is strong because: 1) he believes his assertion of
innocence constitutes a major reason why his motion to withdraw the guilty plea is
warranted; and 2) he blames his counsel and alleges that the “plea was not knowing and
voluntary,” because counsel did not explain what was going on and merely told him what
to say. Appellant Br. at 18.
The first argument is easily dismissed. As discussed, sufficient factual evidence
must be presented to support the assertion of innocence and why a guilty plea was
entered into initially. The District Court considered this and rejected the assertion of
innocence.
Lopez-Pacheco’s second claim that counsel misled him is equally unavailing. He
initially said that he did not remember pleading guilty, then alleged it was his attorney’s
fault. As the District Court pointed out, the defendant only turned to the latter argument
“after he had been told that his purported inability to remember his guilty plea proceeding
was not a sufficient reason to withdraw his guilty plea.” App. at 12. As such, the District
Court did not abuse its discretion by reviewing this record and interpreting it in the same
way that the Magistrate Judge did.
III.
In addition to withdrawal of his guilty plea, Lopez-Pacheco argues that the District
Court abused its discretion by upholding the four-month consecutive sentence because
the court allegedly failed to consider the mandatory sentencing factors set out in 18
5
U.S.C. § 3553(a); and it was unreasonable in light of the time Lopez-Pacheco spent in
“the hole,” his loss of forty-one “good time” days, and the relatively minor charge.
Appellant Br. at 19.
With regard to the first argument, the sentencing court was not required to
consider the Sentencing Guidelines because the maximum sentence for a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 113(a)(5) is six months, making it a Class B crime not subject to the Guidelines.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.9. We apply a “highly deferential” standard to the sentencing court’s
determination. United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009). Although the
simple assault did not carry enough of a maximum sentence to be subject to the
Guidelines, the Magistrate Judge nonetheless went through the appropriate analysis. He
adequately considered, weighed, and explained the § 3553(a) factors and determined that
the four-month sentence fell within reasonable parameters. The Magistrate Judge noted
the history and circumstances surrounding the offense, and explained why he concluded
the sentence was necessary to punish Lopez-Pacheco for the assault and to deter similar
future conduct so as to maintain safety and order within a correctional center.
He also addressed the mitigating factors which Lopez-Pacheco cited and explained
why he decided upon a four-month term out of the six possible months. He also
recommended that Lopez-Pacheco be transferred to another correctional facility to avoid
potential mistreatment. Thus, the Magistrate Judge did not merely make a “rote
statement” that would warrant sentence-reconsideration, as Lopez-Pacheco contends.
Appellant Br. at 20; United States v. Jackson, 467 F.3d 834, 841 (3d Cir. 2006).
6
The District Court discussed these arguments, properly considered and analyzed
the Magistrate Judge’s ruling as well as the defenses and mitigating factors raised by
Lopez-Pacheco, and found the sentence reasonable based on an adequate consideration of
the § 3553(a) factors in light of the “totality of the circumstances.” App. at 15. As such,
the District Court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the sentence.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order affirming the
Magistrate Judge’s denial of Lopez-Pacheco’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and
will affirm the sentence imposed.
7