United States v. Albert Espinoza , 457 F. App'x 241 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4908
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    ALBERT ESPINOZA, a/k/a Bert,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.       Martin K.
    Reidinger, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00029-MR-1)
    Submitted:   October 4, 2011                 Decided:    December 12, 2011
    Before TRAXLER,   Chief   Judge,    and   GREGORY       and   WYNN,   Circuit
    Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    L. Aron Pena, Edinburg, Texas, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins,
    United States Attorney, Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Albert Espinoza pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
    with intent to distribute at least 1000 kilograms of marijuana,
    in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 846
    , 841(b)(1)(A) (2006).                                   In the
    plea     agreement,      Espinoza          agreed        to     cooperate        by    providing
    truthful    testimony         and    information             and   waived     all     rights    to
    contest    his     conviction         and    sentence,             except    for      claims    of
    ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct.
    The plea agreement further provided that the Government had the
    sole     discretion        to        determine       whether              Espinoza      provided
    substantial       assistance         warranting          a     motion      for    a    departure
    pursuant    to    U.S.    Sentencing         Guidelines            Manual     (USSG)     § 5K1.1
    (2009).        Espinoza       also    waived       all        objections      and     rights    to
    appeal    or     collaterally         attack       the       Government’s        determination
    that he failed to provide substantial information or knowingly
    provided false information.
    Prior to sentencing, the Government filed a motion for
    a     downward     departure         pursuant        to        USSG       § 5K1.1     based     on
    Espinoza’s        substantial             assistance.                 However,         following
    Espinoza’s        testimony          at      sentencing             and     based       on     its
    determination       that       he     made     false          statements         therein,      the
    Government withdrew the motion and sought a two-level increase
    for    obstruction       of     justice      under        USSG        § 3C1.1.         The    plea
    agreement stated that, regardless of any substantial assistance,
    2
    “the United States will not move for a reduction in sentence and
    may    seek       an     increased         sentence       if    the     defendant         knowingly
    furnishes materially false information.”                                The sentencing court
    denied the increase for obstruction of justice, did not consider
    the withdrawn USSG § 5K1.1 motion, and sentenced Espinoza within
    the    advisory         Guidelines            sentencing       range     to    210     months   of
    imprisonment.
    On        appeal,          Espinoza        argues       that     the     Government
    breached      the       plea       agreement      by     withdrawing         its    USSG    § 5K1.1
    motion      and     that          counsel      provided     ineffective            assistance   at
    sentencing.            In addition, he asserts four claims of sentencing
    error by the district court.                      In response, the Government argues
    that Espinoza validly waived the right to appeal his conviction
    and sentence, that it did not breach the plea agreement, and
    that   Espinoza’s             claim      of    ineffective        assistance         of    counsel,
    although excepted from the appellate waiver, is not supported by
    the record and therefore is not cognizable on direct appeal.                                    We
    dismiss.
    Espinoza does not challenge the validity of his plea
    or    the   waiver           of    his    right     to    appeal.            Instead,      Espinoza
    contends that the appeal waiver is unenforceable because the
    Government breached the plea agreement containing the waiver by
    withdrawing            its    USSG       § 5K1.1    motion        and    seeking       sentencing
    3
    enhancements.       United States v. Cohen, 
    459 F.3d 490
    , 495 (4th
    Cir. 2006).
    Our review of the record and the plain language of the
    plea agreement lead us to conclude that the Government acted
    within its discretion and did not breach the plea agreement.
    Wade v. United States, 
    504 U.S. 181
    , 184-87 (1992) (in absence
    of    cooperation     agreement,    Government’s          decision     regarding
    § 5K1.1 motion is reviewed to determine whether it was based on
    an unconstitutional motive); United States v. Hartwell, 
    448 F.3d 707
    , 718 (4th Cir. 2006).           Because there was no breach, the
    waiver of appeal is valid and enforceable as to all substantive
    sentencing issues asserted by Espinoza.               Accordingly, we dismiss
    that portion of Espinoza’s appeal.
    Moreover,   we     find       no    conclusive        evidence     of
    ineffective     assistance    of   counsel      and    therefore     decline    to
    address Espinoza’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at
    this time.      See, e.g., United States v. Benton, 
    523 F.3d 424
    ,
    435   (4th    Cir.    2008)   (“Ineffective           assistance     claims    are
    generally not cognizable on direct appeal, however, unless it
    conclusively appears from the record that defense counsel did
    not provide effective representation.” (internal quotation marks
    and citation omitted)); United States v. Richardson, 
    195 F.3d 192
    , 198 (4th Cir. 1999) (“A claim of ineffective assistance of
    counsel should be raised by a habeas corpus motion under 28
    
    4 U.S.C. § 2255
     in the district court and not on direct appeal,
    unless    it    conclusively     appears    from    the    record    that    defense
    counsel    did    not     provide   effective      representation.”        (internal
    quotation marks and citation omitted)).
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions       are   adequately     presented    in     the   materials
    before    the    court,    and   argument   would    not    aid   the     decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-4908

Citation Numbers: 457 F. App'x 241

Judges: Traxler, Gregory, Wynn

Filed Date: 12/12/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024