Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
____________________
No. 95-1236
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
AMADOR IRIZARRY-SANABRIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
____________________
____________________
Before
_____________________
J. Michael McGuinness,
______________________
by Appointment
of
the Court,
for
appellant.
Jos
A. Quiles-Espinosa,
________________________
whom Guillermo Gil, United
______________
Sosa,
____
Assistant
appellee.
United
Senior
Litigation Counsel,
States Attorney,
States
Attorney,
with
on
brief
for
____________________
Per curiam.
Per curiam.
___________
Defendant-Appellant
Amador
Irizarry-
Sanabria
United
For the
March of
1993 and
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Irizarry-Sanabria
was indicted
at his
double jeopardy
grounds, premised
conspiracy to import
arraignment.
on a
agreement.
seeking a
support of
1994.
motion to dismiss
on
previous conviction
of
a plea
His
in
In
In October
1993,
December 1993, he
The district
motion to
in February
withdraw plea,
without an
evidentiary hearing.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
A.
A.
We
review the
court's refusal
of Irizarry-Sanabria's
abuse of discretion.
the
court that
request.
To prevail,
he has shown
a "fair
for his
We follow an establishedtest:
____________________
this
_____________
_______
-2-
A court must
weighing whether
a defendant
meets this
burden,
the
most significant
whether
the
voluntary
the
plea
and
meaning
of which
was
2)
knowing,
intelligent
of [Federal
within
Rule
the
the
timing
of
The other
1) the force
of
is
and
proffered
of
the
request; 3)
whether the
defendant
has asserted
his legal
innocence;
and
4)
whether
the
parties
had
United States v.
_____________
(quoting
First, we find,
oral argument,
comprehensive.
See id.
___ ___
If
Irizarry-Sanabria
argues
that
admitted at
thorough and
his
plea
was
However,
during
coerced
to accept
discussed its
satisfied with
terms
acknowledged that
counsel, and
representation.
United States v.
______________
(1977)).
plea bargain,
with
his legal
verity.'"
the
denied that he
affirmed
that
had been
he had
he
"Such statements
was
in
strong presumption of
Mart nez-Molina, 64
_______________
F.3d 719,
733
U.S. 63, 74
-3-
statement
that the
plea
was
"made under
urgency and
pressure of
this case,"
including Irizarry-Sanabria's
same
counsel.
day if
he
chose, and
confident and
"never showed
any hesitancy or
Order at
6.
commented
proceed to
that he
was
his rights,"
and
of
Irizarry-Sanabria was
knowledgeable of
In
the
In denying
"alert, calm,
plead guilty."
due to
[co-defendants'] attorneys
trial that
all the
duress,
desire to
we
of fact on
hour claim of
Our
we briefly
examine Irizarry-Sanabria's
other asserted
reasons.
prove it,
such proof.
without specifying
anything regarding
of
several times,
the nature
In
such circumstances, we find that the district court did not abuse
its discretion
by "refusing
to give weight
to a
self-serving,
unsupported claim
of innocence."
United States v.
______________
Ramos, 810
_____
-4-
innocence
where
change
lacked merit
of plea
exculpatory
hearing and
evidence); see
___
he did
did not
Isom,
____
85
not
assert innocence
substantiate his
F.2d
at
837
at
claim of
(rejecting
defendant's
pro
se
________
motion
asserting
and
innocence
where
no
thoroughness of the
given the
he has suffered.
Similarly, his
duress -- had
As for
the timing
of
the motion,
almost two
have
previously
found
defendant's position.2
that
See,
___
such
delay
e.g., Isom, 85
____ ____
months
weighs
F.3d at
1993.
We
against
839 (two-
____________________
Appellant
argues that
Irizarry-Sanabria's
this
measure ignores
actually made.
when
that
regardless
the fact
the
defendant's
subjective
decision
was
-5-
month delay);
United States
_____________
v. Pellerito,
_________
878 F.2d
1535, 1541
As for
the final
Irizarry-Sanabria has
mere protestation of
(1st
Cir.
we
note, first,
1983).
of itself be
Second, the
parties
that
Nonetheless, "the
issue-determinative."
455
two factors,
reached
F.2d 449,
plea
As our
favor
of
analysis of all
the district
whether granting
the
court's
decision, we
motion would
need
result in
heavily in
not address
prejudice to
the
in
denying him an
claims.
evidentiary hearing to
evidentiary hearings
exception,
not
repeatedly
stated
criminal
hearing
motion.
the
on
of right
a
evidentiary hearing
are the
We
have
even
in
the
defendant
is
not
to an
pretrial
Thus,
heavy burden of
rule.
that,
context,
entitled as
on motions
party
evidentiary
or
posttrial
seeking
must carry
an
a fairly
special treatment.
United States
______________
(citations
v. McGill,
______
omitted).
11
its discretion in
223,
225 (1st
Irizarry-Sanabria's
abused
F.3d
naked
Cir.
1993)
conclusory
not holding an
evidentiary hearing on
-6-
his
claims.
810 F.2d at
________ ____
On
appeal, counsel
for
coerced
persuade
into pleading
us that
defendant
argues that
"most
the circumstances of a
Rule
been
guilty.
the district
Such
court
generalizations
abused its
do
not
discretion in
has
proceedings,
overseen
pretrial
hand the
F.2d at 1538.
Irizarry-Sanabria
conducted
the
Rule
11
its withdrawal."
Pellerito, 878
_________
at
a potential conflict
duress also
helped him litigate the motion for withdrawal of his guilty plea.
However,
in this
circumstance,
where we
have
a complete
only
the
most sparse
Sanabria, we
discretion,
cannot
allegations
find that
even taking
the
into
on
the
part
motion, and
of
district court
account
the
and
pro se
_______
Irizarry-
abused
nature
its
of
Irizarry-Sanabria's motion.
B.
B.
Irizarry-Sanabria next
-7-
district court
had previously
conspiracy.
to
been found
He alleges that
guilty in a
case involving
the same
jeopardy guarantee.
510.2 of the
However, we find
he
to the magistrate
the
report and
recommendation warned.
Valencia-Copete,
_______________
notice,
report
792 F.2d
failure to
will
file a
waive the
Drilling Co. v.
____________
4, 6
(1st Cir.
specific
right
See
___
to
United States
_____________
1986) (after
objection to
appeal);
see,
___
v.
proper
magistrate's
e.g.,
____
Henley
______
4, 6
(1st
Cir. 1987).
to excuse
waiver "in
basis
for
the interests of
such
action
justice," see
___
(1986), in this
because
we
conclude
Thomas v.
______
case we find
that
no
Irizarry-
weigh
We
were implicated.
Pab n, 911 F.2d 847, 860 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
_____
____________
1074
(1991).
The
only facts
Irizarry-Sanabria
-8-
498 U.S.
points to
in
arguing that
they both
involve the
same amount of
marijuana, and
it was not
the
defendant
and
are that
that they
not the
participants were
confidential informant
Irizarry-Sanabria
was different, see And jar, 49 F.3d at 18-19 (setting out facts),
___ _______
we
viewed as one.
C.
C.
Other Claims
Other Claims
____________
Irizarry-Sanabria
should have
issues.
However,
his
he does
substantive
process
the
government
these
ultimate fact
Similarly,
rights
he was
were
he
he argues
violated
already convicted
by
of, and
both without
error, depriving
pointing to any
under our
"[i]t is
specify what
due process,
extent
due
that
from relitigating
his favor.
conduct that
his
not
been resolved in
prosecution for
effect
alleges
contends has
that
also
error.
him of
To the
waived, as
the
ossature for
the argument,
and
put flesh
on its
bones."
United States v.
______________
Zannino,
_______
895
F.2d 1,
17
(1st Cir.),
cert.
_____
-9-
denied,
______
494 U.S.
e.g., Damon v.
____ _____
Sun Co., 87
_______
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
For
of the
-10-