United States v. Ramirez , 434 F. App'x 39 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •      10-4866-cr
    United States v. Kelly
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    SUMMARY ORDER
    RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
    ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
    PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
    DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
    ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
    SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
    1            At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
    2       for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    3       United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
    4       New York, on the 11th day of October, two thousand eleven.
    5
    6       PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
    7                              Chief Judge,
    8                ROBERT D. SACK,
    9                REENA RAGGI,
    10                              Circuit Judges.
    11
    12       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
    13       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    14                Appellee,
    15
    16                    -v.-                                               10-4866-cr
    17
    18       JOHN RAMIREZ,
    19                Defendant
    20
    21       JONATHAN KELLY,
    22                Defendant-Appellant.
    23       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
    24
    25
    26
    27
    1
    1   FOR APPELLANT:             Robert Peter LaRusso, Mineola,
    2                              New York.
    3
    4   FOR APPELLEES:             Susan Corkery, Berit W. Berger,
    5                              for Loretta E. Lynch, United
    6                              States Attorneys Office for the
    7                              Eastern District of New York,
    8                              New York, New York.
    9
    10        Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
    11   Court for the Eastern District of New York (Johnson, J.).
    12
    13        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
    14   AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
    15   AFFIRMED.
    16
    17        Jonathan Kelly appeals from a judgment of conviction,
    18   following a guilty plea to one count of sex trafficking of a
    19   minor and one count of conspiracy to engage in sex
    20   trafficking. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
    21   underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues
    22   presented for review.
    23        Kelly pled guilty with the benefit of a plea agreement
    24   in which he agreed “not to file an appeal or otherwise
    25   challenge . . . the conviction or sentence in the event that
    26   the Court imposes a term of imprisonment of 188 months or
    27   below.” The district court imposed a sentence of 188
    28   months. Kelly appeals the procedure the district court used
    29   in reaching this sentence. As explained below, Kelly waived
    30   the right to make such an appeal.
    31
    32   [1] Kelly argues that the district court erred by not
    33   determining the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.
    34   However, though an appeal waiver does “not relieve the
    35   District Court of its responsibility to follow the
    36   procedural requirements related to the imposition of a
    37   sentence, the appeal waiver does preclude this Court from
    38   correcting the errors alleged to have occurred below.”
    39   United States v. Buissereth, 
    638 F.3d 114
    , 117 (2d Cir.
    40   2011). One such error is a district court’s failure to
    41   “calculate an applicable sentencing range under the
    42   Sentencing Guidelines.” 
    Id. Accordingly, Kelly,
    by
    43   agreeing to an appeal waiver, waived his right to make such
    44   an appeal.
    45
    46   [2] Kelly argues that the district court erred by adopting a
    47   presentence investigative report (“PSR”) that was factually
    2
    1   inaccurate. The PSR contained an enhancement for “the use
    2   of a computer or an interactive computer service to . . .
    3   entice, encourage, offer, or solicit a person to engage in
    4   prohibited sexual conduct with the minor,” pursuant to
    5   U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(3)(B), which the government agreed was
    6   inapplicable. The PSR also contained a role adjustment for
    7   acting as “organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any
    8   criminal activity,” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), on
    9   which the government took no position.
    10        We are “aware of no case that has held that the mere
    11   existence of inaccurate information in a presentence report,
    12   rather than a district court’s reliance on such information
    13   in sentencing . . . is an error sufficient to void an appeal
    14   waiver.” United States v. Arevalo, 
    628 F.3d 93
    , 99 (2d Cir.
    15   2010).
    16        Here, the district court did not rely on the PSR. In
    17   its written judgment, the court did check a box accepting
    18   the PSR. But while the PSR, with the possible inaccuracies,
    19   recommended a Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months, the
    20   court sentenced Kelly to 188 months. In reaching this
    21   sentence, the court repeatedly stated that it was looking to
    22   the plea agreement. Any inaccuracies in the PSR therefore
    23   did not impact Kelly’s sentence.
    24
    25   [3] Kelly argues that the enhancement in the plea agreement
    26   for undue influence of a minor to engage in prohibited
    27   sexual conduct, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(3)(B), is
    28   not factually supported when the minor was already reduced
    29   to prostitution, and that the district court erred by
    30   ignoring his objection and by basing the sentence on the
    31   plea agreement that contained the objectionable enhancement.
    32        Regardless of whether the enhancement was supported,
    33   Kelly waived the challenge. In Arevalo, this Court stated
    34   that a defendant’s “waiver of his right to ‘challenge . . .
    35   [his] . . . sentence’ plainly includes a waiver of his right
    36   to claim errors arising out of the District Court's crafting
    37   of [his] 
    sentence.” 628 F.3d at 97
    (internal citations
    38   omitted) (ellipses and brackets in original). This is so
    39   because “[p]lea agreements are construed according to
    40   contract law principles.” United States v. Yemitan, 
    70 F.3d 41
      746, 747 (2d Cir. 1995). Kelly agreed to waive all appeals
    42   for a sentence of 188 months or below, and the court
    43   sentenced Kelly to 188 months. Even if a plea agreement
    44   contains a “mutual mistake,” it is enforceable. United
    45   States v. Rosen, 
    409 F.3d 535
    , 548 (2d Cir. 2005).
    46
    3
    1        Finding no merit in Kelly’s remaining arguments, we
    2   hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
    3
    4
    5                              FOR THE COURT:
    6                              CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
    7
    8
    9
    10
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-4866-cr

Citation Numbers: 434 F. App'x 39

Filed Date: 10/11/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024