United States v. Casiano-Santana

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 19-2150
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JULIO N. CASIANO-SANTANA,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Thompson, Boudin, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Irma R. Valldejuli on brief for appellant.
W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, Mariana E. Bauzá-
Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
Division, and Robert P. Coleman III, Assistant United States
Attorney, on brief for appellee.
June 17, 2021
BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Officers of the Puerto Rico
Police Department watched Julio Casiano-Santana ("Casiano") engage
in a drug deal. They arrested him, recovering a loaded pistol and
three bags of crack cocaine from the scene. Casiano was charged
with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), two counts of possession with
intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(C), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Casiano moved to suppress the drugs, the
gun, and certain statements he had made following his arrest, but
his motion was denied.
Casiano then reached a plea agreement with the
government, pleading guilty to possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of a
controlled substance with intent to distribute in exchange for the
government dropping the other two charges. He was sentenced to
103 months in prison.
On appeal, Casiano argues that his plea was invalid
because he entered it without knowing that he was waiving his right
to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.1 Because Casiano
did not raise this objection below, our review is for plain error.
1 Though Casiano's plea agreement contained a waiver of appeal
provision, the parties agree that the waiver does not bar a
challenge to the validity of the plea itself. United States v.
Goodman, 971 F.3d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 2020).
- 2 -
See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58–59 (2002). Casiano
must show "(1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or
obvious and which not only (3) affected [his] substantial rights,
but also (4) seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v. Díaz-
Concepción, 860 F.3d 32, 36 (1st Cir. 2017).
"Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requires a court
to conduct a plea colloquy, advising the defendant of his rights
and questioning him to establish that the plea is knowing and
voluntary." United States v. Smith, 511 F.3d 77, 85 (1st Cir.
2007); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). As part of that requirement,
the district judge must confirm that the defendant understands the
consequences of his plea, including the waiver of certain
enumerated rights. Fed R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). Rule 11 does not
explicitly require the court to warn the defendant that he waives
the right to appeal any interlocutory order, and it is long-settled
law that a defendant who enters an unconditional guilty plea waives
the right to bring claims regarding non-jurisdictional, pre-plea
constitutional violations like the denial of a suppression motion
at issue here. Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798, 805 (2018).
Neither Casiano nor his attorney expressed any lack of
understanding of this rule or a belief that it did not apply to
Casiano. In fact, the district court engaged in a robust plea
colloquy with Casiano, who said whenever asked that he understood
- 3 -
the consequences of his plea, including the provision waiving his
right to appeal from the judgment of conviction.
But even if we credit Casiano's claim that he
misunderstood the consequences of his plea, Casiano cites not one
case in which this Court (or any other) has required a district
judge to specifically advise a defendant that he would be waiving
his right to challenge a suppression motion where there was no
indication that the defendant believed otherwise. Therefore, even
if we determined the sentencing court's silence was error, it could
not have been clear or obvious.
Affirmed.
- 4 -