United States v. Rodriguez-Chavez , 291 F. App'x 915 ( 2008 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 9, 2008
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 07-3156
v. D. Kan.
JOEL RODRIGUEZ-CHAVEZ, (D.C. No. 06-CR-10225-WEB)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10 th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Joel Rodriguez-Chavez was convicted of knowingly making false
statements to a court in a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
U.S.C. § 2255. He appeals from his conviction, arguing the indictment is
ambiguous and the government presented insufficient evidence of his guilt. We
affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In October 2003, Rodriguez-Chavez was indicted in federal court with
illegal reentry after deportation. Assistant Federal Public Defender (AFPD)
Steven Gradert was appointed to represent him. Gradert met with Rodriguez-
Chavez twice: first, to briefly discuss with him the outlines of a proposed plea
agreement from the government; and second, to explain in detail the elements of
the offense, any potential defenses, the chances of a favorable outcome at trial,
and the potential sentencing ramifications, including the amount of time he was
facing due to his prior convictions. While Gradert recommended he enter into a
plea agreement, Rodriguez-Chavez declined.
Due to Gradert’s busy trial schedule, AFPD Timothy Henry took over the
case for him. Henry discovered Rodriguez-Chavez’s guideline range might be
lower than previously expected and advised Rodriguez-Chavez. Henry negotiated
a conditional plea agreement with the government which would allow Rodriguez-
Chavez to plead guilty while preserving his right to appeal certain sentencing
issues. Henry reviewed the plea agreement with Rodriguez-Chavez who agreed to
it.
-2-
At the change of plea hearing, Rodriguez-Chavez informed the court he had
sufficient time to discuss the case with Henry and was satisfied with his
representation. He also stated he understood the charges, the rights he was
forfeiting by pleading guilty, the sentencing guidelines and the plea agreement.
He further assured the court it was his decision to plead guilty. Based on these
representations, the court accepted his guilty plea. Rodriguez-Chavez also signed
under oath a Petition to Plead Guilty which reiterated he was satisfied with his
counsel’s assistance, was pleading guilty because he was guilty and was doing so
freely and voluntarily. The court sentenced Rodriguez-Chavez to 51 months
imprisonment. We affirmed. United States v. Rodriguez-Chavez, 153 Fed. Appx.
524 (10th Cir. 2005).
On August 14, 2006, Rodriguez-Chavez filed a motion to vacate, set aside
or correct sentence in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his
illegal reentry conviction and sentence. “Ground One” stated “INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL” with the following as supporting facts:
“COUNSEL NEVER SPOKE TO MOVANT CONCERNING THE INSTANT
OFFENSE AND MADE MOVANT SIGN HIS PLEA AGREEMENT
INVOLUNTAIRLY [sic.] COUNSEL RESIGNED FROM REPRESENTING
MOVANT [BEFORE] SIGNING OF PLEA.” (R. App. at 25-26.) The following
pre-printed declaration appeared at the end of the motion: “I declare under
-3-
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” (Id. at 26.) Rodriguez-
Chavez signed his name under this provision. The district court ultimately denied
Rodriguez-Chavez’s § 2255 motion.
On October 17, 2006, based on the statements in his § 2255 motion
claiming his counsel never spoke to him concerning the offense and made him
sign a plea agreement involuntarily, the government indicted Rodriguez-Chavez
with knowingly making false statements to a court (perjury) in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1623(a). He waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench
trial. After a one-day trial, the district court found Rodriguez-Chavez guilty. The
court sentenced him to 46 months imprisonment, to run consecutive to his illegal
reentry sentence.
II. DISCUSSION
Rodriquez-Chavez appeals from his perjury conviction, complaining there
was insufficient evidence supporting the district court’s guilty verdict. 1
“In reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, our role is limited to
determining whether a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
1
While not expressly identified as an issue in his opening brief,
Rodriguez-Chavez also argues the indictment is ambiguous. Because he did not
raise this argument in a pretrial motion with the district court and because he is
not claiming the indictment failed to invoke the court’s jurisdiction or to state an
offense, he has waived the issue. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B),(e); see also
United States v. Coppola, 526 F.2d 764, 772 (10th Cir. 1975) (“Objections based
on defects in the indictment, other than those attacking jurisdiction or alleging
that the indictment fails to charge an offense, are to be made prior to trial;
otherwise, they are waived.”).
-4-
based on the direct and circumstantial evidence, together with the reasonable
inferences to be drawn therefrom.” United States v. Chisum, 502 F.3d 1237, 1244
(10th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1290 (2008). As he
concedes, Rodriguez-Chavez failed to file a motion for judgment of acquittal,
either at the close of the government’s case or at the close of all the evidence.
Therefore, we review for plain error. United States v. Goode, 483 F.3d 676, 681
n.1 (10th Cir. 2007). Under this standard, Rodriguez-Chavez must “show there
was (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. If all three
conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a
forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Duran, 133 F.3d
1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotations omitted).
“To prove perjury, the government must establish beyond a reasonable
doubt that: (1) the defendant made a declaration under oath before a federal court;
(2) such declaration was false; (3) the defendant knew the declaration was false;
and (4) the declaration was material.” United States v. Durham, 139 F.3d 1325,
1331 (10th Cir. 1998). Rodriguez-Chavez challenges only the second and third
elements.
A. Falsity of Declarations
Rodriguez-Chavez argues the government presented insufficient evidence
-5-
showing the statements in his § 2255 motion were false. He asserts the
statements were not false but merely misleading because they failed to identify
which counsel never spoke to him about the offense and which plea agreement he
was forced to sign. We disagree.
The district court concluded the counsel referred to in the § 2255 motion
was Gradert. This is a reasonable inference. Both the § 2255 motion and
Rodriguez-Chavez’s brief in support refer to the “counsel who never spoke to
[him] concerning the instant offense” as the counsel who resigned from
representing him. Gradert is the only counsel who resigned. In any event,
whether the motion was referring to Gradert or Henry is immaterial. Both
attorneys testified they spoke with Rodriguez-Chavez concerning the offense and
Rodriguez-Chavez himself testified Henry spoke with him about the offense and
he was pleased with Henry’s representation. While Rodriguez-Chavez testified
Gradert never discussed the offense with him, the district court found his
testimony was not credible and apparently chose to believe Gradert instead. We
will not second guess the court’s credibility determinations. United States v.
Youngpeter, 986 F.2d 349, 352-53 (10th Cir. 1993) (“An appellate court may not
decide the credibility of witnesses as that is the exclusive task of the fact trier . . .
. [When there is conflicting testimony,] [i]t is for the [trier of fact] to decide
which witnesses to believe and which not. Once the [trier of fact] has spoken,
-6-
this court may not reweigh the credibility of the witnesses.”). 2
Similarly, it is immaterial which plea agreement is being referred to in the
§ 2255 motion. There were only two plea agreements in this case: the proposed
plea agreement negotiated by Gradert and the modified proposed plea agreement
negotiated by Henry. Both attorneys testified they did not force or coerce
Rodriguez-Chavez into signing either agreement. In fact, Rodriguez-Chavez did
not sign the proposed agreement negotiated by Gradert. And, there is no
indication he was forced to sign the modified proposed agreement negotiated by
Henry. Indeed, such finding would be directly contrary to Rodriguez-Chavez’s
own statements made under oath at the change of plea hearing and in his Petition
to Plead Guilty that it was his decision to plead guilty, he was satisfied with
Henry’s assistance, he was pleading guilty because he was guilty and he was
doing so freely and voluntarily.
There is more than sufficient evidence demonstrating Rodriguez-Chavez’s
statements in his § 2255 motion were false.
2
Rodriguez-Chavez suggests the counsel referred to in the § 2255 motion
was AFPD John Henderson, who represented Rodriguez-Chavez at his initial
appearance. There is absolutely no support for this argument. Only Gradert and
Henry were listed as Rodriguez-Chavez’s attorneys in the § 2255 motion;
Henderson was not mentioned. Henderson was never appointed to represent
Rodriguez-Chavez nor was he involved in any plea negotiations; he only appeared
at the initial appearance because Gradert was not available. This argument also
contradicts Rodriguez-Chavez’s representations to the district court. Before trial,
in his opening statement, defense counsel stated Rodriguez-Chavez’s § 2255
motion “was directed serially and only toward Steven Gradert.” (R. Supp. App. at
38.)
-7-
B. Knowledge of Falsity
The evidence shows Rodriguez-Chavez knew the statements contained
within the § 2255 motion were false. Both Gradert and Henry testified they
discussed the case with Rodriguez-Chavez and neither forced him to sign the plea
agreement. Because he participated in these discussions and voluntarily signed
the plea agreement, he obviously knew the statements were false. See United
States v. Chapin, 515 F.2d 1274, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (stating a defendant’s
knowledge of the falsity of statements may be inferred from “proof of the
objective falsity itself . . . and from other facts tending to show that the defendant
really knew the things he claimed not to know or recall”) (quotations omitted).
Rodriguez-Chavez does not contest this. Rather, he claims the evidence is
insufficient to show he knew the § 2255 motion contained these false statements.
The government did not offer direct evidence that Rodriguez-Chavez knew
what the § 2255 motion said. Nevertheless, it presented sufficient circumstantial
evidence. See United States v. Larranaga, 787 F.2d 489, 495 (10th Cir. 1986)
(concluding the knowledge element of perjury may be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances); see also United States v. Nguyen, 413 F.3d 1170,
1175 (10th Cir. 2005) (“‘Intent’ may be proven via circumstantial evidence; in
fact, it is rarely established by other means.”). Per the government’s request and
without objection, the district court took judicial notice of Rodriguez-Chavez’s
-8-
§ 2255 proceedings, including the § 2255 motion. The § 2255 motion is
typewritten but bears Rodriguez-Chavez’s signature declaring the information in
the motion is true and correct. Rodriguez-Chavez admitted he signed the motion.
A reasonable inference from this evidence is Rodriguez-Chavez knew what the
motion said, in particular, that it contained false statements.
Not surprisingly, Rodriguez-Chavez testified he did not know what the
§ 2255 motion said. He claimed another inmate completed the motion in English
and he did not tell the inmate what to put in the motion. He also stated he can
only read a “very little bit” of English. (R. App. at 78.) The inmate told him the
§ 2255 motion would help reduce his sentence. Because he was desperate, he
signed the motion without knowing what it said. The district court found this
testimony was not credible for a number of reasons.
First, Rodriguez-Chavez lived in the United States for over twenty years.
The court found it “highly improbable that a relatively young person such as the
defendant could spend that much time in this country without being able to speak
and understand enough spoken English to communicate at a basic level —
including at a level sufficient to communicate the two statements at issue in the §
2255 motion.” (R. App. at 31.) Second, Rodriguez-Chavez had worked various
jobs in the United States and had an extensive exposure to its criminal justice
system. This background made it “all the more improbable” he had only a
-9-
minimal understanding of English. (Id.) Third, Rodriguez-Chavez had previously
sent two letters in English to the court. While there was no evidence he wrote the
letters, they contained numerous details he obviously provided the writer. These
letters, along with the relative ease at which an inmate in the federal system can
locate another inmate who speaks both Spanish and English, gave the court “no
doubt” Rodriguez-Chavez was able to communicate with the inmate who wrote
the § 2255 motion and Rodriguez-Chavez was the source of the information for
the motion. (Id. at 32.) Finally, Rodriguez-Chavez gave contradictory testimony
concerning whether he provided the inmate information to place in the motion.
While he testified he did not tell the inmate what to put in the motion and the
inmate knew what to put in the motion by accessing computer records of his case,
he also admitted he gave the inmate information about the case, including that one
of his attorneys did not spend enough time on his case. 3 We see no reason to
3
The district court also found Rodriguez-Chavez testified he told the other
inmate his plea was “pressured.” (R. App. at 28.) The transcript of Rodriguez-
Chavez’s testimony does not bear this out. However, Rodriguez-Chavez did
waffle on the amount of information he provided the inmate, initially denying he
provided any information to the inmate but later admitting on cross examination
he told the inmate one of his attorneys did not spend enough time on his case.
-10-
disturb the court’s well-supported credibility determination. See Youngpeter, 986
F.2d at 352-53.
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Terrence L. O’Brien
Circuit Judge
-11-