United States v. Jaimes-Lopez

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-16-2005
USA v. Jaimes-Lopez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3289
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Jaimes-Lopez" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 225.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/225
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-3289
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MARTIN JAIMES-LOPEZ,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00164
(Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 17, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, VAN ANTWERPEN and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 16, 2005)
OPINION OF THE COURT
SCIRICA, Chief Judge.
In this criminal appeal invoking the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause,
Appellant Martin Jaimes-Lopez seeks remand for the purposes of re-sentencing. The
District Court held there was no due process violation, and the government did not bind
itself to recommending a downward departure from the applicable sentence under the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines. We will affirm.
I.
The facts are undisputed. Because we write only for the parties, an abbreviated
recitation will suffice. After being arrested in Norristown, Pennsylvania on February 3,
2004 in connection with an alien smuggling operation, Jaimes-Lopez waived his Miranda
rights and agreed to be interviewed by immigration agents. He detailed to those agents
the events leading up to his arrest, including his conversation with his primary contact,
“Nero,” in coordinating the smuggling operation. After Jaimes-Lopez admittedly gave
false information, one immigration agent asked him, “do you want to go home or do you
want to go to jail?” Jaimes-Lopez responded, “I want to go home.” The agent responded,
“well, then, tell me the whole truth,” after which Jaimes-Lopez said he told them the
truth.
Agents then asked him if he was willing to make a call to “Nero,” and, after
Jaimes-Lopez hestitated, told him “come on, let’s go, this is going to help you a lot.”
Jaimes-Lopez placed a call to “Nero,” who subsequently made inculpatory statements.
Jaimes-Lopez then met with an Assistant United States Attorney, and offered some
information about “Nero” and the smuggling operation. When asked by the prosecutor to
obtain additional information about “Nero,” Jaimes-Lopez declined.
2
On April 15, 2004, Jaimes-Lopez entered an open guilty plea to his indictment on
two counts of alien smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1). During the guilty
plea colloquy, the District Court informed Jaimes-Lopez that the government would not
file a motion for a downward departure on his behalf. When asked by the District Court
whether it was “correct” that “the Government has not made any agreement whatsoever,”
Jaimes-Lopez responded, “Yes, your honor.” When the government, in response to a
disagreement between the parties, stated “I’ve informed [defense counsel] prior to today
that this is an open plea and his client will not receive a 5(k), and that he should make his
decision whether to plead guilty or not based on that information,” defense counsel
responded “That’s correct, your Honor. It’s in no way conditional upon anything the
Government is going to do.”
Prior to sentencing, Jaimes-Lopez filed a motion seeking to compel the
government to file a motion for a downward departure (§ 5k1.1 under the United States
Sentencing Guidelines), claiming the agents who arrested him promised a reduced
sentence for his cooperation.
The District Court held the immigration agent lacked authority to bind the
government and, because the conversation was part of “the normal give and take that
happens to agents as they’re talking to people” prior to the AUSA’s involvement, no
actual promise had been made. The District Court sentenced Jaimes-Lopez to 15 months
3
of imprisonment, followed by a three-year period of supervised release, and waived a
special assessment of $200. This appeal followed.
II.
Jaimes-Lopez appeals contending (1) the immigration agents’ representations to
Jaimes-Lopez bind the government’s sentencing recommendations, (2) the immigration
agents promised him a downward departure recommendation in return for his
cooperation, and (3) the government’s decision not to file a motion for downward
departure violated due process.1
A.
The government contends any claimed actual or apparent authority must fail in
light of what transpired at the time of his guilty plea. The responses by Jaimes-Lopez and
his lawyer, the government argues, are evidence of Jaimes-Lopez’s lack of reliance on the
1
Whether the immigration agents had authority to bind the government is a question of
law, and our review is plenary. See United States v. Igbonwa, 120 F.3d 437, 442 (3d Cir.
1997).
Whether the immigration agents made a promise to Jaimes-Lopez is a question of
fact. We review for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Igbonwa, 120 F.3d at 440-41.
Under this standard, a finding is “clearly erroneous when the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Igbonwa, 120 F.3d at 440 (citing United States v. Bogusz, 43 F.3d 82, 85
(3d Cir. 1994)) (citations omitted). We “consider whether there is enough evidence in the
record to support the factual findings of the district court.” Id. at 441 (quoting Cooper v.
Tard, 855 F.2d 125, 126 (3d Cir. 1988)).
Whether the government’s decision not to file a downward departure motion did
not violate due process is a question of law, and our review is plenary. United States v.
Isaac, 141 F.3d 477, 481 (3d Cir. 1998).
4
agents’ statements. We agree that Jaimes-Lopez’s response of “Yes, your honor” to the
District Court’s question whether it was “correct” that “the Government has not made any
agreement whatsoever” strongly demonstrates his lack of reliance on any of the agents’
statements. This lack of reliance is supported by his attorney’s statement to the District
Court that Jaimes-Lopez’s guilty plea is “in no way conditional upon anything the
Government is going to do.” 2
Even assuming the immigration agent had authority to bind the government,
defendant’s arguments would still fail.3 For Jaimes-Lopez to prevail, the immigration
agents’ attempts to induce his cooperation must constitute a promise that the government
would file a motion for downward departure. Under the clear error standard, we give
deference to the District Court’s factual findings so long as there is sufficient evidence in
the record to support those findings. At Jaimes-Lopez’s sentencing hearing, the District
Court found the immigration agents’ colloquy with Jaimes-Lopez was part of “the normal
give and take” that occurs prior to formal discussions with the AUSA. We see no error
here.
2
The government does not contend the defendant waived the issue at the time of his
guilty plea. See, e.g., United States v. Ptomey, 366 F.2d 759, 760 (3d Cir. 1966) (“A plea
of guilty is a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses and constitutes an
admission of guilt.”). Because this matter was not briefed, we will not address it.
3
If there were authority here, it could only be apparent authority, not actual authority.
Nonetheless, we doubt that apparent authority could bind the government’s sentencing
recommendations. However, because this is not essential to our decision, we do not
decide the question.
5
Jaimes-Lopez relies on two of the immigration agents’ statements: first, “do you
want to go home or do you want to go to jail?”, asked in response to the false information
he admittedly supplied to the agents, and second, “c’mon, let’s go, this is going to help
you a lot.” But at no point did any agent make a promise on his sentence or promise to
recommend a downward departure. Nor was there even a passing reference to
“downward departure,” “recommendation,” “plea agreement,” or “5k1.1.” At best, the
agents’ remarks were ambiguous. We see no error here. On review, we are not “left with
a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” Igbonwa, 120 F.3d
437, 440 (3d Cir. 1997).4
Because no promise had been made, the District Court did not err in not finding a
due process violation. “A prosecutor’s discretion to file [a § 5k1.1 motion] [is] almost
unfettered.” United States v. Isaac, 141 F.3d 477, 481 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing Wade v.
United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992)). Although this discretion “is subject to
constitutional limitations that district courts can enforce,” Wade, 504 U.S. at 185, those
limitations do not encompass the full range of bad-faith conduct. Rather, a District Court
must grant a remedy only if the government’s refusal “was based on an unconstitutional
motive,” such as “the defendant’s race or religion.” Id. at 531; accord Isaac, 141 F.3d at
4
We also agree with the government that, even if it had made a binding promise to
Jaimes-Lopez, his refusal to give additional information at the prosecutor’s request
nullified the government’s obligations under that promise.
6
481.5 Because no unconstitutional motive is apparent in this case, and because none has
been argued by Jaimes-Lopez,6 the District Court did not err in not finding a due process
violation.
III.
We will affirm judgment of sentence.
5
Jaimes-Lopez contends that we developed a “bad faith or rationality” test in Isaac,
141 F.3d at 481-83, “if a prosecutor reneged on a cooperation after a plea agreement had
been negotiated.” But Isaac and the cases on which it relied focused on written plea
agreements, absent here, which lent themselves to interpretation under the basic contract
principles informing “bad faith.” Regardless, no promise was made here.
6
In claiming the government’s conduct violated due process, Jaimes-Lopez argues
concepts of “fundamental fairness” are at play. But this applies only to conduct
implicating unconstitutional discrimination, absent here.
7