United States v. Ceballos

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1500
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
MARCELO CEBALLOS,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Héctor M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Joseph Frattallone Marti on brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-
Pacheco, Assistant United States Attorney, and Thomas F.
Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for
appellee.
November 20, 2001
Per Curiam. Marcelo Ceballos challenges the
indictment to which he pled guilty. Specifically, he argues
on appeal that the there was no evidence presented to the
grand jury of an essential element of the charge to which he
pled guilty. Before pleading guilty to Count Three of the
Second Superseding Indictment, which charged him with
conspiring to commit money laundering, Ceballos moved to
dismiss the indictment on the ground that there was
insufficient evidence to support it. At the time that he
pled guilty, however, Ceballos agreed that all pending
motions (which included the motion to dismiss the
indictment) would be “deemed waived.” On appeal, Ceballos
again challenges the factual basis for the indictment,
arguing that there was no evidence presented to the grand
jury to support a finding that he knew that the money he
helped transfer represented proceeds from an unlawful
activity.
“This circuit has ruled that a defendant who pleads
guilty may not later contest the factual and theoretical
foundations of the indictment to which he has pled.” United
States v. Rivera Ramos, 856 F.2d 420, 423 (1 st Cir. 1988).
This appeal by Ceballos represents an effort to contest the
factual foundation of Count Three of the indictment, to
which he pled guilty. At his change-of-plea hearing,
Ceballos specifically admitted that he knew that the money
he helped transfer “came from drug transactions.” Ceballos’
appeal does not fall within any exception for challenges to
“jurisdictional facts” alleged in the indictment. See
Valencia v. United States, 923 F.2d 917, 921 (1st Cir. 1991).1
Ceballos’ conviction and sentence are affirmed. See
Loc. R. 27(c).
1 Ceballos’ reliance upon United States v. Frigerio-Migiano,
254 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2001) is misplaced as appellant in that
case did not plead guilty but appealed from a conviction
following a trial.
-3-