United States v. Santiago-Burgos , 750 F.3d 19 ( 2014 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 12-1897
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
EFRAIN SANTIAGO-BURGOS, a/k/a Miyagui,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Circuit Judge,
Souter*, Associate Justice,
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
Heather Golias, with whom Law Office of Heather Golias was on
brief, for appellant.
Michael C. Bagge, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Veléz, United States Attorney, Nelson Pérez-
Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, and Thomas F. Klumper,
Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for appellee.
*
Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the
Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
April 21, 2014
HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Efrain Santiago-Burgos appeals
the ninety-seven month prison sentence imposed by the district
court after he pled guilty to a drug conspiracy charge. Santiago
argues that the district court made a prejudicial Sentencing
Guideline calculation error and improperly imposed his sentence
consecutive to one he received as a result of a conviction
tangentially related to the relevant drug conspiracy. The
government concedes the Guideline miscalculation point but disputes
the consecutive sentence error. It also argues that any error is
nevertheless for naught because Santiago's plea agreement included
a waiver of appeal. Santiago disputes the applicability of the
waiver. We hold as follows: the waiver does not bar Santiago's
appeal; the consecutive sentence was not improper; the Guideline
error requires remand for resentencing.
I.
In August 2008, Santiago and dozens of other people were
indicted on multiple drug conspiracy counts. The indictment
alleged, inter alia, that Santiago served as a "runner," whose
duties included providing drugs to sellers and collecting drug
proceeds from them. Previously, in July 2006 -- a time during
which the drug conspiracy was alleged to be active -- Santiago was
sentenced to a short prison term and three years of supervised
release for assaulting a Drug Enforcement Agency informant. The
-3-
supervised release eventually was revoked as a result of the
current charges.
In April 2011, Santiago pled guilty to one count of the
present indictment, which charged him with conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine,
fifty grams of cocaine base, one kilogram of heroin, 100 kilograms
of marijuana, and/or Oxycodone and Xanax, all within 1000 feet of
a school or public housing complex.1 The government and Santiago
executed a plea agreement which stipulated that Santiago would be
accountable for at least two but less than 3.5 kilograms of
cocaine. The parties further agreed that Santiago's Sentencing
Guideline calculation would begin with a Base Offense Level ("BOL")
of twenty-eight,2 to be increased by two levels because of the
protected location involved3 and by two more levels for his role in
the offense.4 Finally, if Santiago accepted responsibility for his
crimes, he would receive a three-level deduction.5 These
stipulations yielded an agreed-upon Total Offense Level ("TOL") of
29, a result which is not part of this appeal.
1
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 and 860.
2
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(6).
3
Id. § 2D1.2(a)(1).
4
Id. § 3B1.1(c).
5
Id. § 3E1.1.
-4-
The plea agreement contained no stipulation with respect
to Santiago's Criminal History Category ("CHC"), but the parties
agreed to certain limits on the parties' permissible arguments
about the appropriate sentence. They agreed that, if Santiago's
CHC was determined to be I, he could ask for a sentence as low as
eighty-seven months or the low end of the applicable Guideline
range, whichever was higher. The government, meanwhile was
permitted to recommend a sentence of ninety-seven months if
Santiago's CHC was I or II. A CHC of III or higher would result in
a recommendation at the low end of the applicable Guideline range.6
Neither side was permitted to recommend a sentence shorter than
eighty-seven months.
Especially relevant to this appeal, the plea agreement
contained the following waiver provision: "The defendant hereby
agrees that if this Honorable Court accepts this Plea Agreement and
sentences him according to its terms, conditions and
recommendations, defendant waives and surrenders his right to
appeal the judgement [sic] and sentence in this case."
II.
After Santiago's plea and before sentencing, a
Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") was provided to the
district court. Santiago's CHC is the fulcrum of the parties'
6
A CHC of I and TOL 29 yields a sentence range of 87-108
months; the same TOL with a CHC of II yields a 97-121 month range;
a CHC of III produces a 108-135 month range.
-5-
dispute. The PSR first saddled Santiago with two criminal history
points for his 2006 informant assault conviction. See U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.1(b). Two additional points were added because the instant
offense was committed, in part, while Santiago was under a term of
supervised release for the informant assault conviction. Id.
§ 4A1.1(d). The four criminal history points yielded a CHC of III.
The district court sustained Santiago's objection to the
two criminal history points for the prior conviction, id.
§ 4A1.1(b), on the basis that the assault on the informant was an
overt act within the conspiracy. See Id. § 4A1.2 cmt. n.1
(excluding from consideration of criminal history sentences that
are for conduct that is part of the instant offense). Siding with
the government, the district court denied Santiago's objection to
the two additional points related to his commission of the instant
offense while on supervised release. See Id. § 4A1.1(d). Halving
the total of points from four to two dropped Santiago into CHC II,
resulting in a sentencing range of 97-121 months. The district
court imposed a sentence at the bottom end of that range and
ordered it to run consecutively to the thirteen-month sentence he
received on the informant assault case after his supervised release
was revoked.
III.
On appeal, Santiago challenges the two criminal history
points assessed under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) and the district court's
-6-
imposition of a consecutive, rather than a concurrent, sentence.
For its part, the government concedes the criminal history error,
observing that the same rationale that the district court employed
to deduct two criminal history points under section 4A1.1(b) --
that the assault was an overt act within the conspiracy to which
Santiago was pleading guilty -- should apply to the two points
assessed under section 4A1.1(d). We accept this concession and say
no more about the issue. The government additionally maintains
that there was no error in the consecutive sentence. But the
government further argues that, regardless of any error below, the
appellate waiver provision of the plea agreement altogether
precludes Santiago's appeal. We turn first to the waiver.
The government argues that even though the court erred in
its Guideline calculation by sentencing Santiago according to CHC
II (two points) rather than CHC I (zero points), the sentence
nevertheless met the waiver's requirement that it fall within "[the
Agreement's] terms, conditions and recommendations" because the
agreement allowed a ninety-seven month sentence for either CHC I or
CHC II. We disagree.
A waiver of appeal is valid if it was knowingly and
voluntarily executed, and if enforcement would not result in a
miscarriage of justice if enforced. Sotirion v. United States, 617
F.3d 27, 33 (1st Cir. 2010); United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14,
24-25 (1st Cir. 2001). But "[e]ven a knowing and voluntary appeal
-7-
waiver only precludes appeals that fall within its scope." United
States v. McCoy, 508 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir. 2007); see also United
States v. Okoye, 731 F.3d 46, 49 (1st Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134
S. Ct. 1329 (2014); United States v. Acosta-Roman, 549 F.3d 1, 3
(1st Cir. 2008).
Here, Santiago does not claim that the waiver was not
knowing and voluntary. But we still must determine whether this
appeal falls within the waiver's scope. To do so, we rely on basic
contract interpretation principles, construing the agreement where
possible to give effect to every term and phrase, Okoye, 731 F.3d
at 49, and construing any ambiguities in favor of allowing the
appeal to proceed, id. (citing United States v. Fernández-Cabrera,
625 F.3d 48, 51 (1st Cir. 2010)).
The government argues that Santiago's ninety-seven month
sentence was expressly contemplated by the plea agreement, and thus
his claim falls well within the waiver. We see it differently,
however. While the agreement certainly did not entitle Santiago to
any particular sentence, and a ninety-seven month sentence was
possible under either CHC I (where it would be in the middle of the
sentencing range) or II (where it would be at the low end of the
sentencing range), the district court's CHC error deprived Santiago
of an express right that he otherwise did possess under the
Agreement -- to argue for an eighty-seven month sentence. Because
the agreement limited Santiago's request to the greater of eighty-
-8-
seven months or the lower end of the applicable guideline range,
once the district court erroneously settled on CHC II (with a low-
end sentence of ninety-seven months), Santiago was deprived of one
of the benefits of the plea bargain -- the possibility of a
sentence at the low end of the correct guideline range. See United
States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2000) (observing that a
defendant who fulfills his part of a plea agreement is "entitled to
the benefit of his bargain").
Here, Santiago's sentence recommendation was highly
dependent on the CHC. Specifically, he could argue for an eighty-
seven month sentence "if [his] Criminal History Category is I." In
fact, his CHC was I (or at least should have been), and he was not
permitted to so argue. We therefore find that he was not
"sentence[d] . . . according to [the agreement's] terms,
conditions, and recommendations" and the waiver is therefore
inapplicable to this appeal. Cf. McCoy, 508 F.3d at 77-78 (finding
waiver inapplicable where district court misapplied Guideline and
waiver applied to sentence "within the Guideline range"). With the
error conceded, we need not resolve the merits of Santiago's CHC
argument and hold that Santiago must be re-sentenced applying CHC
I.7
7
While we have previously upheld the validity of identical
waivers, we have also suggested that, given the frequency of
appeals involving waivers, "it would be better practice" if waiver
provisions made specific reference "to any terms and conditions of
the plea agreement that are not intended" by the parties to be
-9-
We need less discussion to resolve the waiver issue with
respect to the consecutive sentence. The plea agreement made no
reference whatsoever as to whether the sentence should run
consecutively to the previous one. We have previously found that
a similar waiver did not bar an appeal of a consecutive sentence,
and we so hold here. See United States v. Maldonado-Escarfullery,
689 F.3d 94, 97 n.2 (1st Cir. 2012).
When we turn to the substance of the argument, however,
we find that Santiago's victory is a pyrrhic one. In some cases
federal sentences imposed on a defendant subject to an undischarged
prior sentence must be consecutive, see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a); in
other cases, the sentence must be concurrent, with credit for time
served, see id. § 5G1.3(b); and in still other cases, the matter is
left to the discretion of the sentencing judge, see id. § 5G1.3(c).
United States v. Dunbar, 660 F.3d 54, 56 (1st Cir. 2011) (per
curiam). Here, the parties agree that subsection (a), which
applies to defendants serving an undischarged term of imprisonment,
is inapposite here. So we turn our attention to subsections (b)
and (c). Santiago first argues that the district court erred by
not applying U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), which would have mandated that
his sentences run concurrently. He concedes that he did not raise
this issue before the district court and that, therefore, we review
within the waiver's scope. United States v. Ortiz-García, 665 F.3d
279, 284 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Acosta-Roman, 549
F.3d 1, 4 n.3 (1st Cir. 2008)).
-10-
it only for plain error. Success on appeal requires Santiago to
demonstrate: 1) an error; 2) that was plain or obvious and; and
which 3) affected his substantial rights; and also 4) seriously
impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the
judicial proceedings. United States v. Díaz-Maldonado, 727 F.3d
130, 142 (1st Cir. 2013).
To receive a concurrent sentence under Section 5G1.3(b),
Santiago must demonstrate both that his prior sentence is based on
conduct that is "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.3(a)(1),
(2) or (3), and that such relevant conduct was the basis for an
increase in the offense level in this case. United States v.
Carrasco-De-Jesús, 589 F.3d 22, 27 (1st Cir. 2009). Here the
dispute centers on the second element, whether the assault on the
DEA informant was part of the two-level, role-in-the-offense
increase for being an "organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor"
in the conspiracy of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).
Santiago begins by correctly noting that his offense-
level adjustment was due to his role as a "runner" responsible for
supervising street-level dealers. His argument jumps the tracks,
however, when he tries to link his runner role to violence of the
type that led to his informant assault conviction. None of a
runner's responsibilities described in the record include violence.
Santiago tries to elide this gap by noting that the record reflects
that "some co-conspirators would use violence" to achieve their
-11-
goals. However, Santiago does not direct us to any record evidence
to show that he was part of the group of violence-using co-
conspirators. Accordingly, we cannot find any error, much less
plain error, in not applying section 5G1.3(b)
Santiago argues in the alternative that, even if U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.3(c) properly applied, the district court erred in not
exercising its discretion to run the sentences concurrently.
However, his reliance on U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) fares no better.8 In
cases that do not fit within either subsection (a) or (b),
subsection (c) allows the sentencing judge to impose sentences
consecutively, concurrently, or partially concurrently to achieve
a reasonable punishment for the instant offense. Drilling a bit
deeper, Application Note 3(C) states that "[s]ubsection (c) applies
in cases in which the defendant was on federal or state . . .
supervised release at the time of the instant offense and has had
such . . . supervised release revoked." U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, cmt.
n.3(C). The crowning blow to Santiago's argument follows, though:
"[T]he Commission recommends that the sentence for the instant
offense be imposed consecutively to the sentence imposed for the
8
Despite Santiago's entreaties to the contrary, this argument
was not raised below. While his brief points us to several spots
in the record where he asserted that the conduct underlying his
revocation was "relevant," in the sentencing vernacular, to the
instant conviction, those references were all made in connection
with his objection to the CHC calculation, not the consecutive
sentence issue. A single remark at sentencing that all the conduct
is "part of the same . . . conspiracy, and therefore that the
sentence should be concurrent" does not change our view.
-12-
revocation." Id. In harmony with this note, we have held in a
similar circumstance that consecutive sentences are "the default
position." United States v. Parks, 698 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2012)
(affirming consecutive sentence imposed on defendant who was on
probation at time of conviction, even though both the conviction
and probation violation arose from the same course of conduct),
cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2021 (2013). Against this backdrop, there
was no error in the district court's decision to impose the
sentence in this case consecutively to the revocation sentence.
IV.
Santiago's ninety-seven month sentence is vacated and
this case is remanded to the district court for resentencing in
accordance with this opinion. The district court's decision to
impose the sentence in this case consecutively to Santiago's
earlier sentence is affirmed.
-13-