Filed: Oct. 14, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 14, 2020
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 14 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30277 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00309-RBL-1 v. CONSTANTINO MARES GARCIA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 5, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: CALLAHAN and CHRISTEN, Circui
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 14 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30277 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00309-RBL-1 v. CONSTANTINO MARES GARCIA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 5, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: CALLAHAN and CHRISTEN, Circuit..
More
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 14 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30277
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:18-cr-00309-RBL-1
v.
CONSTANTINO MARES GARCIA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 5, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: CALLAHAN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Constantino Mares Garcia appeals the 120-month, mandatory minimum
sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of
possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Mares Garcia timely
appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo whether Mares Garcia waived his right to appeal. United States v. Arias-
Espinosa,
704 F.3d 616, 618 (9th Cir. 2012). We conclude he did, and dismiss
Mares Garcia’s appeal. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite
only those necessary to resolve the appeal.
1. “[P]lea bargains are essentially contracts.” Puckett v. United States,
556
U.S. 129, 137 (2009). Like other contracts, “each party may obtain advantages
through concessions on their part.” United States v. Littlefield,
105 F.3d 527, 530
(9th Cir. 1997) (Hall, J., concurring). Defendants commonly waive their right to
appeal their sentence in exchange for government concessions, but such a waiver
must be knowing and voluntary. United States v. Buchanan,
59 F.3d 914, 917 (9th
Cir. 1995). “We look to circumstances surrounding the signing and entry of the
plea agreement to determine whether the defendant agreed to its terms knowingly
and voluntarily.”
Id.
On June 21, 2019, Mares Garcia pleaded guilty to the single count charged
in the indictment. The plea agreement provided that Mares Garcia waived any
2
rights conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to appeal a mandatory minimum sentence, if
the mandatory minimum was higher than the range provided in the sentencing
guidelines. In exchange, the government agreed: (1) that it would seek a sentence
of imprisonment “no greater than the lesser of 120 months or the lawful low end of
the advisory Guidelines range as calculated by the Court”; and (2) that it would not
prosecute Mares Garcia for any additional offenses known to the government at the
time that were based on evidence in the government’s possession and arose out of
Mares Garcia’s conduct that gave rise to the government’s investigation. At the
Rule 11 change-of-plea hearing, the magistrate judge reviewed the contents of the
appellate waiver with Mares Garcia, and Mares Garcia stated he understood its
terms. The magistrate judge specifically explained that the appeal waiver would
apply if the statutory mandatory minimum was higher than the guidelines range
and if the district court sentenced Mares Garcia to that mandatory minimum. The
magistrate judge found that Mares Garcia’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary,
and intelligent, and on July 8, 2019, the district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation and accepted Mares Garcia’s guilty plea. On
this record, we conclude the appeal waiver in Mares Garcia’s plea agreement was
valid and, by its terms, applies to the sentence the district court imposed. Despite
this, Mares Garcia argues he has the right to appeal his sentence because the
3
district court stated at the sentencing hearing that it would “disregard” the appeal
waiver and “not order that the waiver [was] met.”
“[W]hen a district court makes statements that contradict a defendant’s prior
waiver of a right to appeal, we have focused on both the court’s statements and the
defendant’s reasonable expectations about his rights” when determining whether to
enforce the waiver.
Arias-Espinosa, 704 F.3d at 618 (citing United States v.
Lopez-Armenta,
400 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2005)). Specifically, we have said
that if a district court clearly states that the defendant has the right to appeal despite
the existence of an appellate waiver, the government must immediately object in
order for the waiver to remain enforceable.
Id. (citing United States v. Felix,
561
F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2009)). Here, we conclude the district court’s statements
did not vitiate Mares Garcia’s valid appeal waiver because the government
promptly objected to the district court’s clear statements suggesting the court
would not enforce the waiver. See
Felix, 561 F.3d at 1041 (“[A] waiver of the
right to appeal will only be enforced if the government immediately objects to the
court’s advisement of a right to appeal and the sentencing judge acknowledges the
presence of the waiver.”);
Littlefield, 105 F.3d at 528–530 (Hall, J., concurring).
4
Accordingly, we enforce the valid appeal waiver and dismiss Mares Garcia’s
appeal.1
DISMISSED.
1
Mares Garcia’s unopposed motion to file the reply brief under seal
(Dkt. #28) is GRANTED. The motion to seal (Dkt. #28-1) and reply brief (Dkt.
#28-2) shall be maintained under seal.
5