United States v. Morales-Arroyo

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-1185
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
JUAN ÁNGEL MORALES-ARROYO,
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, Chief Judge,
Thompson and Barron, Circuit Judges.
Merritt Schnipper on brief for appellant.
Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief,
Appellate Division, Mainon A. Schwartz, Assistant United States
Attorney, and Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney,
on brief for appellee.
April 19, 2017
HOWARD, Chief Judge. Juan Ángel Morales-Arroyo
challenges the reasonableness of a 132-month prison sentence
imposed for unlawful possession of firearms in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime and for possession of crack cocaine with
intent to distribute. He contends that the waiver-of-appeal
provision in his plea agreement does not bar this appeal. After
careful consideration, however, we conclude that it does and
dismiss Morales's appeal.
I.
Morales pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to unlawful possession of three AK-47s in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime and possession of crack cocaine with
intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), respectively.
Of particular importance here, the plea agreement
included a provision titled "Waiver of Appeal." This provision
stated that Morales "knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to
appeal the judgment and sentence in this case, provided that [he]
is sentenced in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth
in the Sentence Recommendation provisions of this Plea Agreement."
Under the plea agreement's "Sentence Recommendation"
section, the parties stipulated that, "[i]n consideration of the
relevant factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)," Morales would
- 2 -
recommend "a sentence of 96 months of imprisonment and the United
States [would] recommend to the Court a sentence of 144 moths [sic]
of imprisonment."
The district court accepted Morales's plea and sentenced
him to 132 months in prison.
II.
As a threshold matter, we must determine whether the
waiver-of-appeal provision is enforceable under the circumstances
of this case. See United States v. Acosta-Roman, 549 F.3d 1, 3
(1st Cir. 2008). "[U]nder ordinary circumstances, a knowing,
voluntary waiver of the right to appeal from a sentence, contained
in a plea agreement, ought to be enforced." United States v.
Teeter, 257 F.3d 14, 23 (1st Cir. 2001).
Typically, in determining whether a waiver is valid, we
look to confirm that the plea agreement contains a clear statement
elucidating the waiver and delineating its scope, and we examine
the plea hearing to ascertain whether the defendant was
specifically questioned about his understanding of the waiver and
adequately informed of its ramifications. United States v.
Chandler, 534 F.3d 45, 49 (1st Cir. 2008). On the record before
us, Morales's waiver of appeal survives such scrutiny.
Morales, however, does not challenge the waiver
provision's validity but rather its scope: he asserts that, under
- 3 -
its plain language, the waiver provision does not apply to this
appeal. In the alternative, Morales argues that -- even if the
waiver provision is applicable -- enforcing it "would work a
miscarriage of justice." We take these claims in turn.
A. Plain Language
We interpret plea agreements under basic contract
principles and construe ambiguities in favor of allowing the appeal
to proceed. United States v. Okoye, 731 F.3d 46, 49 (1st Cir.
2013). Mindful of this fact, Morales urges us to find the waiver-
of-appeal provision ambiguous insofar as it refers to the "Sentence
Recommendation provisions." According to Morales, ambiguity stems
from the use of the plural "provisions" because the plea agreement
contains only one section titled "Sentence Recommendation." In
other words, Morales pins his hopes on the proposition that the
waiver provision is ambiguous as to whether it excludes from its
scope not only the judge's failure to impose a sentence within the
range proposed by the parties but also errors based on the
sentencing court's failure to comply with applicable "provisions"
of the federal sentencing statutes.
Morales, however, is "conjuring up an ambiguity where
none legitimately exists." United States v. Anderson, 921 F.2d
335, 338 (1st Cir. 1990; see also United States v. Betancourt-
Pérez, 833 F.3d 18, 22–23 (1st Cir. 2016). He waived his right to
- 4 -
appeal as long as he received a sentence between 96 and 144 months.
As Morales's sentence fell well within the range contemplated by
the plea agreement, the waiver provision applies under its plain
language.
B. Miscarriage of Justice
A waiver that is made knowingly and voluntarily is
presumptively enforceable. However, "even if the waiver passes
muster at [these] first two steps, an appellate court will not
enforce it if doing so would work a miscarriage of justice."
United States v. Nguyen, 618 F.3d 72, 74 (1st Cir. 2010). The
circumstances that could potentially justify such a refusal to
enforce a waiver are "infinitely variable." Teeter, 257 F.3d at
25 n.9. Relevant considerations, however,
include the character, clarity, and gravity of the claim of
error, its impact on the defendant, any possible prejudice to
the government that might accompany a refusal to honor the
waiver, and the extent to which the defendant can fairly be
said to have acquiesced in the result.
Nguyen, 618 F.3d at 75.
Only sparingly will we refuse to enforce an otherwise
valid waiver of appeal under the miscarriage of justice exception.
See, e.g., United States v. Pratt, 533 F.3d 34, 37 (1st Cir. 2008);
United States v. De-La-Cruz Castro, 299 F.3d 5, 13 (1st Cir. 2002).
A defendant who, like Morales, seeks to appeal despite having
knowingly and voluntarily waived that right "must show more than
- 5 -
reversible error." Nguyen, 618 F.3d at 75. At a minimum, he must
show "an increment of error more glaring." Id.; cf. United States
v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280, 282 (7th Cir. 1995) ("Defendants who appeal
from sentences following plea agreements always point to
unanticipated and unwelcome developments. . . . To say that a
waiver of appeal is effective if and only if the defendant lacks
grounds for appeal is to say that waivers will not be honored.").
The errors alleged by Morales cannot "vault the hurdle
erected by the waiver."1 United States v. Calderon-Pacheco, 564
F.3d 55, 59 (1st Cir. 2009); see also Sotirion v. United States,
617 F.3d 27, 38 (1st Cir. 2010) (finding no miscarriage of justice
despite the sentencing court's miscalculation of the advisory
guideline range where the sentence fell below the upper-limit
1
Morales objects to the procedural reasonableness of his
sentence. He concedes that he raised no objection below and,
therefore, review is for plain error. See United States v. Dávila-
González, 595 F.3d 42, 47 (1st Cir. 2010). Essentially, Morales
argues that the sentencing court did not adequately explain its
upward variance and relied on factors already accounted for by the
Guidelines. Upon review, we conclude that the district court did
not commit plain error. Even when a non-Guidelines sentence is
imposed, a sentencing court may rely on a factor already included
in the calculation of the Guidelines sentencing range as long as
the court "articulate[s] specifically the reasons that this
particular defendant's situation is different from the ordinary
situation covered by the guidelines calculation." United States
v. Zapete-Garcia, 447 F.3d 57, 60 (1st Cir. 2006); see also United
States v. Fernández-Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48, 54 (1st Cir. 2010)
("Where the record permits a reviewing court to identify both a
discrete aspect of an offender's conduct and a connection between
that behavior and the aims of sentencing, the sentence is
sufficiently explained to pass muster under section 3553(c).").
The district court did so here.
- 6 -
sought by the government); United States v. Edelen, 539 F.3d 83,
87 (1st Cir. 2008) (finding claims that the sentencing court erred
in applying official-victim sentencing enhancement and in failing
to consider sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine
did not constitute a miscarriage of justice); United States v.
Corso, 549 F.3d 921, 931 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding no miscarriage of
justice where district court made errors in applying number-of-
victims and abuse-of-trust enhancements).
Indeed, "far from working a miscarriage of justice,
[Morales's] plea agreement conferred significant benefits on him."
Sotirion, 617 F.3d at 38. In exchange for waiving his right to
appeal, the government agreed to dismiss two other firearms-
related counts. Morales cannot now renege on his bargain.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, Morales's waiver is both
valid and enforceable and, therefore, our consideration of this
appeal on the merits is barred. The appeal is dismissed.
- 7 -