United States v. Laracuent ( 2015 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 13-1365
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
ANDY LARACUENT,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Thompson, Kayatta, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Elaine Mittleman on brief for appellant.
Rosa Emilia Rodríquez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson
Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, and Tiffany V.
Monrose, Assistant United State Attorney, on brief for appellee.
February 17, 2015
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Defendant Andy Laracuent
pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. His appeal seeks to
vacate this plea on grounds of factual insufficiency. Following
careful consideration, we reject Laracuent's claim of error.
BACKGROUND
On January 26, 2012, law enforcement officials observed
a Nissan Armada, along with two other vehicles, driving into a bay
area in Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico.1 At the same time, a vessel was
seen traveling into the bay. Several individuals were observed
offloading bales from the vessel into the vehicles, including
Laracuent. The vehicles then exited the bay area, where they were
stopped by DEA agents who conducted a traffic stop and arrested the
individuals inside of the vehicles, including Laracuent, who was
inside the Nissan Armada. The substance in the bales was
subsequently analyzed and confirmed to be cocaine. Additionally,
during the traffic stop, law enforcement found three firearms
inside the Nissan Armada.
In connection with these events, a grand jury returned a
three-count indictment against Laracuent and thirteen co-
defendants. Laracuent was charged with conspiracy to possess with
1
When an appeal follows a guilty plea, the facts are drawn
from some combination of "the change-of-plea colloquy, the
presentence investigation report, and the transcript of the
disposition hearing." United States v. Jiminez, 498 F.3d 82, 84
(1st Cir. 2007).
-2-
intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1),(b)(1)(A)(ii), 846 (Count 1); possession with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of a substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 2); and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count 3).
Laracuent pleaded guilty to Count One and Count Three.
Count Two was dismissed. He was subsequently sentenced to a prison
term of one hundred twenty months on Count One and sixty months on
Count Three, to be served consecutively, along with a supervised
release term of five years. Laracuent timely appealed, seeking to
vacate his conviction on Count Three only by challenging the
court's acceptance of his plea.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Typically, we review the district court's acceptance of
a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Negrón-
Narváez, 403 F.3d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 2005). However, where, as here,
a defendant is silent as to alleged errors in the district court
proceedings, and seeks to withdraw his plea for the first time on
appeal, we review his claim for plain error. Id.; United States v.
Ramos-Mejía, 721 F.3d 12, 14 (1st Cir. 2013). Plain error review
puts a heavy burden on the defendant; he must show "(1) that an
error occurred (2) which was clear or obvious and which not only
-3-
(3) affected the defendant's substantial rights, but also (4)
seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings." Negrón-Narváez, 403 F.3d at 37.
DISCUSSION
Laracuent posits that the proffer at the plea colloquy
did not provide a sufficient factual basis for finding the
requisite intent for aiding and abetting possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Rule 11(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure guides our inquiry. It
requires that, "[b]efore entering judgment on a guilty plea, the
court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea."
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). In other words, the court must decide
that "the defendant's conduct actually corresponds to the charges
lodged against him." United States v. Jiminez, 498 F.3d 82, 86
(1st Cir. 2007). To satisfy the "factual basis" requirement, the
necessary showing is "fairly modest," that is, the government does
not have to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but instead
must "show a rational basis in fact for the defendant's guilt."
Ramos-Mejía, 721 F.3d at 16. It need not support every element of
the charge with direct evidence. Id. (citing United States v.
Marrero-Rivera, 124 F.3d 342, 352 (1st Cir. 1997)).
Laracuent's quibble with the factual basis for his plea
is circumscribed. His primary contention is that there was an
insufficient showing that he had advance knowledge that one of his
-4-
confederates would carry a gun. For support, Laracuent cites the
recently decided United States v. Rosemond, 134 S.Ct. 1240, 1249
(2014), which, in the context of a post-jury trial appeal, held
that "[a]n active participant in a drug transaction has the intent
needed to aid and abet a § 924(c) violation when he knows that one
of his confederates will carry a gun."2 In a more cursory fashion,
Laracuent also suggests that there was a lack of proof as to who
the principal was in this offense.3
Laracuent misses the mark. "[A]s long as the
government's proffered facts, conceded by the defendant to be true,
touch all the bases, there is a sufficient factual basis for the
tendered plea." Jiminez, 498 F.3d at 87. Here, during the plea
colloquy, the following exchange took place.
THE COURT: Now, I'm addressing, at this
moment, Mr. Laracuent as to count three. Sir,
your Plea Agreement also indicates that you're
pleading guilty to count three of the
Indictment. Count three of the indictment
alleges that: "On January 26, 2012, in the
District of Puerto Rico, you, Andy Laracuent,
and two others named as Defendants, aiding and
abetting each other, did knowingly and
unlawfully possess a Glock pistol, Model 19, 9
millimeter caliber, a Smith & Wesson pistol,
.40 caliber, and one FNP pistol, .45 caliber,
2
Advance knowledge can include knowledge acquired prior to
the commission of a drug trafficking offense, or knowledge that is
acquired while an offense is in progress. Rosemond, 134 S.Ct. at
1253, n.1 (Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
3
Count Three was levied against Laracuent and two co-
defendants. It read: "the defendants herein, aiding and abetting
each other, did knowingly and unlawfully possess firearms."
-5-
in furtherance of the drug trafficking
crime.." that I just summarized to you in
count one of the Indictment... "all in
violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section [9]24(c)(1)(a) and (2). Mr.
Laracuent, is this the other count to which
you're pleading guilty to?
[LARACUENT]: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: And, do you admit that you
committed this offense knowingly, in other
words, not by accident or by mistake, but
rather were fully aware of what you were
doing?
[LARACUENT]: Yes.
The government described the evidence it would have offered at
trial. In relevant part, the prosecutor stated:
At the time of his participation [in] the
[drug] offense, Defendant Andy Laracuent knew
that the bales he helped unload contained
cocaine. For purposes of (unintelligible),
Defendant is held responsible for at least
fifteen kilograms, but less than fifty
kilograms, of cocaine. Inside the Nissan
Armada, Agents also found three firearms, one
Glock pistol, Model 19, 9 millimeter caliber,
bearing Serial #MFN-989, one Smith & Wesson
pistol, .40 caliber, bearing Serial #PEN-0659,
and one FNP pistol, .45 caliber, bearing
Serial #61-DMR-1474. Defendant possessed
these firearms in furtherance of the above-
described drug trafficking crime. At trial
the United States would have established these
facts proving Defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt as to count[]...three of the
Indictment by presenting the testimony of
witnesses, including law enforcement officers,
surveillance photographs, photographs of the
vessel and the narcotics, the narcotics
seized, the laboratory results, the firearms
and ammunition, as well as any other pertinent
documentation.
-6-
Laracuent was then asked: "do you admit as true the summary of the
evidence that has just been given by the Prosecutor?" He twice
answered "Yes."
In other words, Laracuent does not contest these facts.
At both the plea colloquy and in his signed plea agreement,
Laracuent agreed with the factual accounting -- namely that law
enforcement officials observed Laracuent loading bales of what was
confirmed to be cocaine into three vehicles, including the Nissan
Armada in which he was stopped at the time of his arrest. The
officials found three firearms in the car with the drugs. At the
plea hearing, Laracuent agreed that he himself knowingly and
unlawfully possessed these firearms, making his arguments as to
advance knowledge and the identity of the principal seem
particularly flimsy.
"The component facts [that form the rational basis for
accepting a guilty plea] may come either from the defendant's
admissions and concessions or from credible evidence proffered by
the government and not contradicted by the defendant." Negrón-
Narváez, 403 F.3d at 37. Based on Laracuent's own concessions, the
court below could conclude that the government's proffered facts
provided a rational basis from which to infer that Laracuent had
the requisite intent. Laracuent's sudden speculation that he may
not have known about the firearms in advance is insufficient. As
we have said, a "mere possibility . . . might constitute a
-7-
plausible line of defense at trial, but such possibilities, without
more, are not enough to dissipate an intact factual basis for a
guilty plea." Jiminez, 498 F.3d at 87.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained, we see no clear or obvious
error and are satisfied that the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) have
been met in this case. The change-of-plea record provides ample
factual support for Laracuent's guilty plea. His conviction as to
Count Three is affirmed.
-8-