united states v. jones, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Jones, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/28

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2358

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

BYRON J ONES,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Pat t i B. Sar i s, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udge,Sout er , * Associ at e J ust i ce,and Li pez, Ci r cui t J udge.

J onat han Shapi r o, wi t h whom Har l ey C. Racer and Ster n,Shapi r o, Wei ssber g & Gar i n, LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Kel l y Begg Lawr ence, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Febr uary 20, 2015

*Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( r et . ) of t he Supr emeCour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/28

SELYA, Circuit Judge. Fol l owi ng a f ai l ed mot i on t o

suppr ess, def endant - appel l ant Byron J ones pl eaded gui l t y t o an

ar r ay of dr ug- t r af f i cki ng char ges. The def endant now chal l enges

both hi s convi ct i on and hi s 135- mont h sent ence. Hi s appeal

r equi r es us, i nt er al i a, t o const r ue and appl y f or t he f i r st t i me

a sent enci ng enhancement f or mai nt ai ni ng a pr emi ses f or t he pur pose

of manuf act ur i ng or di st r i but i ng dr ugs. See USSG 2D1. 1( b) ( 12) .

Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on of al l t he i ssues agai nst t he backdr op

of a scumbl ed r ecor d, we af f i r m.

I. BACKGROUND

We br i ef l y rehear se the genesi s and t r avel of t he case.

I n t he f al l of 2011, a Cape Cod dr ug deal er ( whom f or si mpl i ci t y' s

sake we shal l cal l CW) was under t he watchf ul eye of t he Dr ug

Enf or cement Admi ni st r at i on ( DEA) . On November 7, l ocal pol i ce

obser ved CW meet i ng t he def endant at an apart ment i n Fal l Ri ver ,

Massachuset t s bef or e sel l i ng cr ack cocai ne t o a conf i dent i al

i nf or mant . The sur vei l l ance t eaml at er saw t he def endant ' s al l eged

coconspi r ator , Meaghan Mur phy, ent er and l eave t he apar t ment on

sever al occasi ons.

Aware t hat t he def endant pr evi ousl y had been convi ct ed of

dr ug- peddl i ng char ges, t he DEA began moni t or i ng t he apar t ment . On

November 21, t he aut hor i t i es saw CW meet Murphy at t he apar t ment

and t hen sel l cr ack cocai ne t o an under cover pol i ce of f i cer . CW

agai n met Murphy at t he apar t ment on December 8. I mmedi at el y af t er

- 2-


3/28

t hi s meet i ng, pol i ce of f i cer s det ai ned CW and sei zed 63 gr ams of

cr ack cocai ne. At t hi s poi nt , CW began cooper at i ng wi t h t he DEA.

On t hree occasi ons bet ween December 15, 2011 and J anuar y

24, 2012, agent s di r ect ed CW t o cont act t he def endant by t ext

message t o set up cont r ol l ed buys. These messages r esul t ed i n t wo

sal es by Mur phy and one sal e by the def endant hi msel f . Dur i ng t wo

of t he t r ansact i ons, a vi deo r ecor di ng devi ce capt ur ed f oot age of

Mur phy or t he def endant r et r i evi ng dr ugs f r om a cool er i nsi de t he

apar t ment .

On J anuar y 24, 2012, DEA agent s, armed wi t h sear ch and

ar r est war r ant s, ent er ed t he apar t ment , f ound t he def endant t her e,

and ar r est ed hi m. The ensui ng search r ecover ed over 600 gr ams of

cr ack cocai ne, near l y 500 gr ams of powdered cocai ne, and ext ensi ve

evi dence t hat cr ack was bei ng cooked and packaged on si t e.

I n due season, a f eder al gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed Mur phy and

t he def endant . The i ndi ct ment charged t he def endant wi t h

conspi r acy t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed subst ances, possessi on of

cont r ol l ed subst ances wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e, 1 and thr ee

speci f i c of f ense count s ref l ect i ng par t i cul ar cr ack sal es. See 21

U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) , 846.

The def endant i ni t i al l y mai ntai ned hi s i nnocence and, i n

vi ew of hi s i ndi gency, a magi st r at e j udge appoi nt ed counsel t o

1 Thi s count r ef er r ed t o t he cont r aband f ound at t he apart mentdur i ng t he pr emi ses search.

- 3-


4/28

r epr esent hi m. See 18 U. S. C. 3006A. Wi t hi n a mat t er of weeks,

t he def endant moved f or t he appoi nt ment of new counsel , accusi ng

hi s or i gi nal l awyer of f ai l i ng t o r ai se cer t ai n i ssues dur i ng

detent i on pr oceedi ngs. On March 23, 2012, t he magi st r ate j udge

gr ant ed t he mot i on and r epl aced t he f i r st at t orney wi t h a second

cour t - appoi nt ed at t or ney.

Sl i ght l y more than f our mont hs went by bef ore t he

def endant agai n r equest ed new counsel , t hi s t i me ci t i ng a f ai l ur e

t o communi cate. Once agai n, t he magi st r ate j udge obl i ged,

r epl aci ng the second appoi nt ed at t or ney wi t h yet a t hi r d appoi nt ed

at t or ney ( Dani el Cl oher t y) .

Based on t he t r avel of t he case, t he di st r i ct cour t

ant i ci pat ed t hat t he def endant woul d f i l e a mot i on t o suppr ess by

March 15, 2013. I nst ead, At t orney Cl ohert y moved t o wi t hdr aw,

asser t i ng t hat t her e had been an i r r eparabl e br eakdown i n t he

l awyer - cl i ent r el at i onshi p. The di st r i ct cour t pr obed t hi s

asser t i on over t wo days of hear i ngs. Af t er det er mi ni ng t hat

At t orney Cl oher t y and the def endant were communi cat i ng wel l enough

t o enabl e t hemt o mount an adequate def ense, t he cour t deni ed t he

mot i on. Not wi t hst andi ng war ni ngs f r om t he cour t about t he per i l s

of sel f - r epr esent at i on, t he def endant el ect ed t o pr oceed pr o se on

t he mot i on t o suppr ess ( wi t h At t or ney Cl ohert y as st andby counsel ) .

The def endant proceeded t o f i l e hi s suppress i on mot i on.

Fol l owi ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, t he cour t r ej ect ed i t . The

- 4-


5/28

def endant t her eaf t er r el i nqui shed hi s pr o se st at us and At t or ney

Cl oher t y r esumed hi s r ol e as def ense counsel .

Event ual l y, t he government and t he def endant ent ered i nt o

a wr i t t en pl ea agr eement ( t he Agr eement ) . The Agreement pr ovi ded

t hat t he def endant woul d pl ead gui l t y t o al l f i ve count s i n

exchange f or t he government ' s wi t hdr awal of a sent ence- enhanci ng

i nf or mat i on. See 21 U. S. C. 851.

At t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng, t he cour t advi sed t he

def endant of t he charges agai nst hi m. The subsequent col l oquy

r eveal ed t hat t he def endant had a par t i al col l ege educat i on, knew

how t o read and wr i t e, and had r ead and underst ood the i ndi ct ment

and t he Agr eement . At t he cour t ' s di r ect i on, t he gover nment

r ecount ed t he f act ual basi s f or t he char ges. The pr osecut or

descr i bed t he event s l eadi ng up t o t he t hr ee cont r ol l ed buys, t he

buys t hemsel ves, t he sear ch of t he apart ment , and t he ci r cumst ances

of t he def endant ' s arr est . When t he cour t asked t he def endant

whet her he di sagr eed wi t h any par t of t hi s f act ual nar r at i ve, he

r epl i ed t hat he di d not . The cour t t hen r ead t he i ndi ct ment al oud,

and the def endant pl eaded gui l t y t o each and ever y count .

- 5-


6/28

Fol l owi ng t he def endant ' s pl ea t o t he conspi r acy char ge, 2

t he cour t asked, "So you and Meaghan Murphy were i n a conspi r acy t o

di st r i but e cr ack?" The def endant r esponded i n t he af f i r mat i ve.

The di sposi t i on hear i ng proved t o be cont ent i ous. The

pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r eport r ecommended a two- l evel

enhancement f or mai nt ai ni ng t he apar t ment as a st ash house. See

USSG 2D1. 1( b) ( 12) . I t al so recommended addi ng t wo poi nt s t o t he

def endant ' s cr i mi nal hi st or y scor e f or commi t t i ng t he of f enses of

convi ct i on whi l e on super vi sed r el ease f ol l owi ng hi s i ncar cer at i on

f or an ear l i er cri me. See i d. 4A1. 1( d) . The di st r i ct cour t

r esol ved bot h di sput ed sent enci ng i ssues agai nst t he def endant .

These r ul i ngs combi ned t o el evat e t he def endant ' s gui del i ne

sent enci ng r ange ( GSR) t o 135- 168 mont hs. 3

The cour t sentenced t he def endant t o a bot t om- of - t he-

r ange i ncar cer at i ve t er mof 135 mont hs. Thi s t i mel y appeal ensued.

2 The cour t st at ed i n r el evant par t :

[ F] r oma t i me unknown t o the gr and j ur y but f r omat l east. . . November 2011, and cont i nui ng t her eaf t er unt i l i nor about J anuar y 24, 2012, i n Fal l Ri ver and el sewher e,i n t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s, [ Byr on J ones] andMeaghan Mur phy di d knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y combi ne,conspi r e, conf eder at e and agr ee . . . t o possess wi t hi nt ent t o di st r i but e and t o di st r i but e cocai ne base andcocai ne . . . .

3 Wi t hout t he st ash house enhancement and t he added cr i mi nalhi st ory poi nt s, t he def endant ' s GSR woul d have been 97- 121 mont hs.Of course, t hat GSR woul d have been t r umped by t he 10- yearmandatory mi ni mum sent ence t hat appl i ed because t he conspi r acyi nvol ved more t han 280 gr ams of cr ack cocai ne. See 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) .

- 6-


7/28

II. ANALYSIS

The def endant ' s counsel ed br i ef , f i l ed by new appel l at e

counsel , advances t hr ee pr i nci pal cl ai ms of er r or . I n addi t i on,

t he def endant has f i l ed a pr o se br i ef . We consi der t he cl ai ms set

f or t h i n the def endant ' s counsel ed br i ef one by one and t hen deal

wi t h t he cl ai ms rai sed i n hi s pr o se br i ef . Fi nal l y, we t i e up a

l oose end.

A. The Guilty Plea.

The def endant i nsi st s t hat hi s gui l t y pl ea shoul d be

vacat ed because i t was not knowi ng and vol unt ar y. I n hi s vi ew, t he

di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed adequat el y to appr i se hi m of t he nat ur e of

t he char ges. Si nce t he def endant di d not chal l enge t he i nt egr i t y

of hi s pl ea bel ow, our r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55, 58- 59 ( 2002) . To sat i sf y t hi s

exact i ng st andar d, t he def endant must demonst r at e "( 1) t hat an

er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear or obvi ous and whi ch not onl y

( 3) af f ected [ hi s] subst ant i al r i ght s, but al so ( 4) ser i ousl y

i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St at es v. Duar t e, 246 F. 3d 56, 60 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) .

Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 11( b) ( 1) ( G) r equi r es

a di st r i ct cour t , bef or e accept i ng a gui l t y pl ea, t o "i nf or m t he

def endant of , and det er mi ne t hat [ he] under st ands, . . . t he nat ur e

of each char ge t o whi ch [ he] i s pl eadi ng. " Thi s rul e exi st s "t o

- 7-


8/28

ensure t hat a def endant who pl eads gui l t y does so wi t h f ul l

compr ehensi on of t he speci f i c at t r i but es of t he char ge and t he

possi bl e consequences of t he pl ea. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos- Mej a,

721 F. 3d 12, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The def endant i dent i f i es t hree ost ensi bl e shor t comi ngs i n

t he change- of - pl ea col l oquy. He says t hat t he cour t di d not

expl ai n t he el ement s t hat t he government woul d have to pr ove t o

est abl i sh each of t he f i ve char ges; t hat no one suf f i ci ent l y

descr i bed ei t her t he conspi r acy or t he event s l eadi ng up t o t he

cont r ol l ed buys; and t hat t he cour t negl ect ed t o expl ai n t he

meani ng of t er ms l i ke "conspi r acy" and "wi l l f ul l y and

i nt ent i onal l y. "

The def endant i s f or agi ng i n an empty cupboard. Rul e 11

does not r equi r e a di st r i ct cour t ei t her t o spout a f i xed cat echi sm

or t o use a set of magi c wor ds. See i d. at 15. Nor does t he r ul e

demand expl anat i ons of t he " t echni cal i nt r i caci es of t he char ges i n

t he i ndi ct ment . " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . Whi l e a

di st r i ct cour t must t ouch al l of t he appr opr i at e bases, i t need not

be pr eci se t o t he poi nt of pedant r y. I n t he f i nal anal ysi s, t he

adequacy of a gi ven col l oquy must be assessed i n l i ght of " t he

at t r i but es of t he par t i cul ar def endant , t he nat ur e of t he speci f i c

of f ense, and t he compl exi t y of t he at t endant ci r cumst ances. " I d.

When t he char ges ar e uncompl i cat ed and t he def endant i s

i nt el l i gent , r eadi ng t he i ndi ct ment t o hi m, pl aci ng t he char ges i n

- 8-


9/28

an appr opr i at e f act ual cont ext , and obt ai ni ng hi s acknowl edgment of

under st andi ng wi l l nor mal l y suf f i ce. See i d. ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Del gado- Her nndez, 420 F. 3d 16, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ; Uni t ed St at es

v. Rami r ez- Beni t ez, 292 F. 3d 22, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

I n t hi s i nst ance, t he char ges ar e not i nt r i cat e and t he

ci r cumst ances t hat undergi r d t he char ges ar e about as

st r ai ght f or war d as one coul d i magi ne. Thi s i s a r un- of - t he- mi ne

t wo- per son conspi r acy. Sever al of t he over t act s wi t hi n t he

char ged conspi r acy par al l el t he speci f i c of f ense count s i n t he

i ndi ct ment . Under st andi ng t hose count s ( and, t hus, t he conspi r acy)

i s chi l d' s pl ay: t hey ar e r oot ed i n not hi ng mor e compl i cat ed t han

hand- t o- hand cont r ol l ed buys.

The def endant ' s backgr ound cont ai ns not hi ng t o suggest

t hat he coul d not easi l y under st and and appr eci at e t hese si mpl e

char ges ( whi ch wer e r ead t o hi m by t he di st r i ct cour t ) . He i s a

hi gh- school gr aduat e who has some col l ege- l evel educat i on.

Mor eover , hi s pr i or convi ct i on f or conspi r i ng t o di st r i but e crack

cocai ne evi nces a degr ee of f ami l i ar i t y wi t h t he cr i mi nal j ust i ce

syst em i n gener al and wi t h cr i mi nal dr ug- t r af f i cki ng conspi r aci es

i n par t i cul ar . Last but not l east , t he Agr eement at t est ed t o t he

f act t hat t he def endant had di scussed t he char ges wi t h hi s l awyer

and underst ood t hem.

Gi ven t hi s mi se- en- scne, we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t adequatel y conveyed t he natur e of t he char ges. See Ramos-

- 9-


10/28

Mej a, 721 F. 3d at 15- 16. A mor e el aborat e expl anat i on of var i ous

t er ms cont ai ned i n t he i ndi ct ment was not necessary. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Car t er , 815 F. 2d 827, 829 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( concl udi ng

t hat si mi l ar charges were "s i mpl e enough t hat a man wi t h a hi gh

school educat i on who says t hat he under st ands t hem shoul d be

bel i eved" ) .

The def endant ' s at t empt t o st r engt hen hi s hand by

deni gr at i ng t he gover nment ' s r eci t at i on of t he f act s at t he change-

of - pl ea hear i ng i s unavai l i ng. The pr osecut or expl ai ned t hat CW

was observed meet i ng wi t h t he def endant and/ or Mur phy on di ver s

occasi ons, af t er each of whi ch cr ack was f ound i n CW' s possessi on.

Whi l e t he pr osecut or di d not speci f y t he dat es of t he t r ansact i ons,

he descr i bed how CW made thr ee cont r ol l ed buys over t he cour se of

a f ew weeks begi nni ng December 15, 2011. Coupl ed wi t h t he r eadi ng

of t he char ges cont ai ned i n t he i ndi ct ment ( whi ch al l eged a

conspi r acy t hat was underway by November of 2011 and speci f i ed t he

dat es of t he t hr ee cont r ol l ed buys) , t he pr osecut or ' s ver si on of

t he r el evant event s suf f i ci ent l y appr i sed t he def endant t hat t he

char ges agai nst hi m encompassed conduct pr edat i ng t he cont r ol l ed

buys.

The def endant ' s cont ent i on t hat t he change- of - pl ea

col l oquy di d not f ur ni sh hi mwi t h enough i nf or mat i on t o under st and

t hat cer t ai n sent enci ng enhancement s mi ght appl y i s wi de of t he

mar k. At t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng, t he gover nment set out t he

- 10-


11/28

mi ni mum and maxi mum penal t i es appur t enant t o the of f enses of

convi ct i on and el uci dat ed i t s posi t i on wi t h r espect t o sent enci ng.

The cour t t hen expl ai ned t he process t hrough whi ch i t woul d

determi ne t he def endant ' s sent ence. Thi s was more t han enough:

not hi ng i n Rul e 11 obl i ges a di st r i ct cour t t o i nf or m t he

def endant , at a change- of - pl ea hear i ng, of t he exact manner i n

whi ch f ut ur e gui del i ne cal cul at i ons may evol ve. See Fed. R. Cr i m.

P. 11 advi sor y commi t t ee' s not e ( 1989 amendment ) ( "Si nce i t wi l l be

i mpr act i cabl e, i f not i mpossi bl e, t o know whi ch gui del i nes wi l l be

r el evant pr i or t o t he f or mul at i on of a pr esent ence r epor t and

r esol ut i on of di sput ed f acts, [ t he di st r i ct cour t i s not r equi r ed]

t o speci f y whi ch gui del i nes wi l l be i mpor t ant or whi ch gr ounds f or

depar t ur e mi ght pr ove t o be si gni f i cant . " ) . Any ot her r ul e woul d

put t he car t bef or e t he hor se, r equi r i ng t he cour t t o get t he

f unct i onal equi val ent of a f ul l pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t

bef or e i t coul d accept a gui l t y pl ea.

The shor t of i t i s t hat wher e, as her e, cr i mi nal char ges

ar e uncompl i cat ed, r eadi ng t he i ndi ct ment , suppl yi ng a f act ual

basi s f or t he char ges, expl ai ni ng t he manner i n whi ch t he

sent enci ng gui del i nes oper at e, and obt ai ni ng t he def endant ' s

acknowl edgment of under st andi ng wi l l t ypi cal l y suf f i ce t o sat i sf y

t he st r i ct ur es of Rul e 11. I t f ol l ows t hat t her e was no er r or ,

pl ai n or ot her wi se, i n t he change- of - pl ea col l oquy.

- 11-


12/28

B. The Stash House Enhancement.

We come now t o the f i r st of t he def endant ' s cl ai ms of

sent enci ng er r or : hi s cl ai m t hat t he di str i ct cour t er r ed i n

enhanci ng hi s of f ense l evel on t he gr ound t hat he mai nt ai ned t he

apart ment as a st ash house. We appr oach t hi s aspect of t he case

mi ndf ul t hat t he government bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t he

el ement s of a sent enci ng enhancement by a pr eponder ance of t he

evi dence. See Uni t ed St at es v. Panet o, 661 F. 3d 709, 715 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f act ual f i ndi ngs f or cl ear

er r or and i t s i nt er pr et at i on and appl i cat i on of t he sent enci ng

gui del i nes de novo. See i d. When t he r aw f act s ar e suscept i bl e t o

mor e t han one r easonabl e i nf er ence, a sent enci ng cour t ' s choi ce

between t hose compet i ng i nf erences cannot be cl ear l y err oneous.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Rui z, 905 F. 2d 499, 508 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) .

I n dr ug- t r af f i cki ng cases, t he sent enci ng gui del i nes

di r ect a di st r i ct cour t t o i ncrease a def endant ' s of f ense l evel by

t wo l evel s i f he "mai nt ai ned a pr emi ses f or t he pur pose of

manuf act ur i ng or di st r i but i ng a cont r ol l ed subst ance. " USSG

2D1. 1( b) ( 12) . Her e, t he pr oof dr awn l ar gel y f r om t he

suppr essi on hear i ng was somethi ng of a mi xed bag.

On the one hand, t he evi dence showed t hat t he def endant

di d not own or r ent t he apart ment ( t he ost ensi bl e tenant bei ng one

Cr yst al Cr ot eau) , di d not r ecei ve mai l t her e, di d not use t he

addr ess on any of f i ci al f or ms ( say, a dr i ver ' s l i cense) , and di d

- 12-


13/28

not cont r act f or any of t he ut i l i t i es ( whi ch wer e bi l l ed t o

Cr ot eau) . The sur vei l l ance evi dence i ndi cat ed t hat t he def endant ' s

pr i mar y r esi dence was hi s gi r l f r i end' s home, not t he apar t ment .

On the other hand, t he evi dence showed t hat t he def endant

had r eady access t o t he apar t ment . He t est i f i ed t hat he had got t en

a key f r om Cr oteau and admi t t ed t hat he somet i mes del i ver ed t he

r ent money on her behal f . He f ur t her admi t t ed t hat he had gi ven a

dupl i cat e key t o Mur phy, t hat he f r om t i me to t i me spent t he ni ght

at t he apar t ment ( somet i mes al one and somet i mes wi t h hi s

gi r l f r i end) , t hat he kept cl ot hes and a t oot hbr ush t her e, and t hat

he f el t f r ee t o come and go as he pl eased. There was no evi dence

t hat Cr oteau had ever l i ved i n t he apart ment or t hat Mur phy had

ever spent t he ni ght t her e.

Based on t he f act s devel oped dur i ng t he government ' s

sur vei l l ance and t he suppr essi on hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound

t hat t he def endant had domi ni on and cont r ol over t he apar t ment and

used i t pr i nci pal l y f or pur poses of hi s dr ug- di st r i but i on

ent er pr i se. The cour t pr oceeded t o appl y t he st ash house

enhancement , hi ki ng t he def endant ' s of f ense l evel by t wo l evel s.

The def endant obj ect ed bel ow, and r enews hi s obj ect i on on appeal .

The st ash house enhancement was devel oped as a r esponse

t o t he Fai r Sent enci ng Act of 2010, whi ch di r ect ed t he Sent enci ng

Commi ss i on t o pr ovi de f or a t wo- l evel enhancement when " t he

def endant mai nt ai ned an est abl i shment f or t he manuf actur e or

- 13-


14/28

di st r i but i on of a cont r ol l ed subst ance, as gener al l y descr i bed i n

[ 21 U. S. C. 856] . " Pub. L. No. 111- 220, 6( 2) , 124 St at . 2372,

2373. I n vi ew of t he enhancement ' s l i neage, cour t s i nt er pr et i ng i t

have gener al l y l ooked t o case l aw i nt er pr et i ng 21 U. S. C. 856.

See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Fl or es- Ol ague, 717 F. 3d 526, 531- 32

( 7t h Ci r . 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mi l l er , 698 F. 3d 699, 705- 07 ( 8t h

Ci r . 2012) . We f ol l ow t hi s pr axi s.

The st ash house enhancement appl i es when a def endant

knowi ngl y mai nt ai ns a pr emi ses f or t he pur pose of manuf actur i ng or

di st r i but i ng a cont r ol l ed subst ance. See USSG 2D1. 1, comment .

( n. 17) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ver ner s, 53 F. 3d 291, 295- 96

( 10t h Ci r . 1995) . The t er m "mai nt ai ns" i s not def i ned ei t her i n

t he gui del i ne or i n i t s st at ut or y ant ecedent . The Sent enci ng

Commi ss i on' s comment ar y, desi gned t o br i dge thi s gap, i nst r uct s

cour t s t o consi der , among ot her t hi ngs, "whet her t he def endant hel d

a possessor y i nt er est i n ( e. g. , owned or r ent ed) t he pr emi ses" and

"t he extent t o whi ch t he def endant cont r ol l ed access t o, or

act i vi t i es at , t he pr emi ses. " USSG 2D1. 1, comment . ( n. 17) . I n

cases ar i si ng under sect i on 856, cour t s have deemed r el evant

consi der at i ons such as " [ a] ct s evi denci ng such mat t er s as cont r ol ,

dur at i on, acqui si t i on of t he si t e, r ent i ng or f ur ni shi ng t he si t e,

r epai r i ng t he si t e, super vi si ng, pr ot ect i ng, suppl yi ng f ood t o

t hose at t he si t e, and cont i nui t y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Cl avi s, 956

F. 2d 1079, 1091 ( 11t h Ci r . 1992) . Thi s i s obvi ousl y a non-

- 14-


15/28

exhaust i ve l i st ; as par t i cul ar cases var y, so t oo wi l l t he f actor s

t hat may i nf or m t he quest i on of whether a def endant mai nt ai ns a

pr emi ses.

The "use" component of t he st ash house enhancement i s

l i kewi se pr ot ean. Never t hel ess, one t hi ng i s cl ear : f or t he

enhancement t o appl y, dr ug di st r i but i on need not be t he sol e reason

t hat a def endant mai nt ai ns t he pr emi ses. Rat her , dr ug di st r i but i on

must be a "pr i mar y or pr i nci pal " use, as opposed t o a use that i s

mer el y " i nci dent al or col l at er al . " USSG 2D1. 1, comment . ( n. 17) .

A def endant ' s pur pose may be i nf er r ed f r om t he t ot al i t y of t he

ci r cumst ances, i ncl udi ng such f act s as t he quant i t y of dr ugs

di scover ed and t he pr esence of dr ug par apher nal i a or t ool s of t he

dr ug- t r af f i cki ng t r ade. See Fl or es- Ol ague, 717 F. 3d at 533- 34; see

al so Ver ner s, 53 F. 3d at 296- 97 ( expl ai ni ng t hat " t he mor e

char act er i st i cs of a busi ness t hat ar e pr esent , t he mor e l i kel y i t

i s t hat t he pr oper t y i s bei ng used" f or a pr ohi bi t ed pur pose) . One

r el evant consi der at i on i s f r equency; t hat i s, how of t en t he

def endant used t he pr emi ses f or dr ug- r el ated pur poses and how of t en

he used t he pr emi ses f or l awf ul pur poses. See USSG 2D1. 1,

comment . ( n. 17) .

Exami ned t hr ough t hi s pr i sm, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

depl oyment of t he st ash house enhancement passes must er . There was

ampl e evi dence that t he def endant exerci sed domi ni on and cont r ol

over t he apar t ment . He had a key, came and went at wi l l , and sl ept

- 15-


16/28

t here whenever he pl eased. He and no one el se kept cl ot hes and

t oi l et r i es t her e. I n addi t i on, he cont r ol l ed t he acti vi t i es t hat

t ook pl ace at t he apar t ment ( by, f or exampl e, f ur ni shi ng a key t o

hi s coconspi r at or ) and ensured that t he pr emi ses woul d remai n

avai l abl e by del i ver i ng r ent payment s.

The di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat a suf f i ci ent nexus

exi st ed bet ween t he pr emi ses and t he def endant ' s drug- t r af f i cki ng

act i vi t i es i s uni mpugnabl e. Sur vei l l ance evi dence showed t hat t he

def endant and Mur phy sol d dr ugs f r omt he apart ment f or near l y t hr ee

mont hs. Fur t her mor e, t he DEA' s sear ch of t he apart ment di scl osed

t hat si zeabl e quant i t i es of cocai ne and numer ous accout er ment s of

t he dr ug- t r af f i cki ng t r ade ( e. g. , a di gi t al scal e, boxes of baki ng

soda and sandwi ch bags, ki l o wr appers bear i ng cocai ne r esi due, and

a pot and spoon t hat t est ed posi t i ve f or cocai ne) wer e bei ng kept

t her e. Vi ewed agai nst t hi s backdr op, we di scer n no cl ear er r or i n

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat a pr i nci pal use of t he apar t ment

was f or act i vi t i es r el at ed t o t he def endant ' s di st r i but i on of

cont r ol l ed subst ances.

The def endant ' s ef f or t s t o r esi st t he enhancement ar e

unavai l i ng. To begi n, he ar gues t hat he di d not mai nt ai n t he

apar t ment at al l si nce he nei t her owned nor r ent ed i t . Thi s i s

t r ue as f ar as i t goes, but i t does not t ake t he def endant ver y

f ar . The enhancement does not r equi r e ei t her ownershi p or a

l easehol d i nt er est . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Rent er i a- Sal dana,

- 16-


17/28

755 F. 3d 856, 859- 60 ( 8t h Ci r . 2014) ; Fl or es- Ol ague, 717 F. 3d at

532. Thi s makes good sense: i t woul d def y r eason f or a dr ug deal er

t o be abl e t o evade appl i cat i on of t he enhancement by t he si mpl e

expedi ent of mai nt ai ni ng hi s s t ash house under someone el se' s name.

See Uni t ed St ates v. Mor gan, 117 F. 3d 849, 857- 58 ( 5t h Ci r . 1997) .

The def endant ' s second pl ai nt i s no mor e compel l i ng. He

asser t s t hat he l acked suf f i ci ent cont r ol over t he apar t ment

because hi s access was non- excl usi ve. Thi s i s wi shf ul t hi nki ng:

t he t erms of t he enhancement do not r equi r e t hat a def endant

cont r ol access t o t he pr emi ses t o t he excl usi on of al l ot her s.

The def endant ' s t hi r d at t ack on t he i mposi t i on of t he

enhancement i s an exer ci se i n r evi si oni st hi st or y. He chal l enges

t he f i ndi ng t hat a pr i mar y use of t he apart ment was f or dr ug

di st r i but i on on t he gr ound t hat he and others used t he apart ment as

a r esi dence. That i s pur e codswal l op: t he cour t bel ow suppor t abl y

f ound t hat t he apart ment was not t he def endant ' s habi t ual

r esi dence, and t he recor d cont ai ns no evi dence t hat anyone el se

l i ved t her e.

Fi nal l y, t he def endant compl ai ns t hat what was sauce f or

t he goose was not sauce f or t he gander : when sentenced, Mur phy di d

not r ecei ve t he st ash house enhancement . Bui l di ng on t hi s r i cket y

f oundat i on, he suggest s t hat appl yi ng t he enhancement t o hi m

r esul t s i n an unwar r ant ed sent enci ng di spar i t y. Thi s suggest i on i s

vecor di ous.

- 17-


18/28

To begi n, t he def endant ' s ar gument er ect s a f al se

di chot omy. The i ssue i s whet her t he r ecor d f ai r l y suppor t s t he

enhancement as t o t he def endant . Whet her Murphy ( who was sent enced

at a di f f erent t i me and on what may have been a di f f erent r ecor d)

deserved a si mi l ar enhancement i s a di f f er ent quest i on. See, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. Ri os, 893 F. 2d 479, 481 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) ( per

cur i am) .

At any r at e, t he di st r i ct cour t war r ant abl y f ound t he

evi dence t hat t he def endant mai nt ai ned t he apar t ment "much

st r onger " t han t he evi dence t hat Mur phy mai nt ai ned i t . Thus, any

di spar at e t r eat ment was f ul l y j ust i f i ed.

C. The Added Criminal History Points.

I n sel ect i ng a def endant ' s cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y

( CHC) , t he gui del i nes di r ect t he sent enci ng cour t t o add t wo

cr i mi nal hi st or y poi nt s i f t he def endant commi t t ed t he of f ense( s)

of convi ct i on whi l e under a cr i mi nal j ust i ce sent ence. See USSG

4A1. 1( d) . I t i s undi sput ed t hat a super vi sed r el ease t er m i s a

cr i mi nal j ust i ce sent ence, see i d. , and t hat t he def endant was on

super vi sed r el ease i n connect i on wi t h a pr i or dr ug- t r af f i cki ng

convi ct i on unt i l December 13, 2011. For t hi s reason, t he cour t

bel ow added t he t wo cr i mi nal hi st or y poi nt s an act i on t hat

boost ed t he def endant i nt o a hi gher CHC.

The def endant prot est s. He i nsi st s t hat t he conduct

under l yi ng t he of f enses of convi ct i on di d not begi n unt i l December

- 18-


19/28

15, 2011 ( t he dat e of t he f i r st cont r ol l ed buy) and t hat ,

t her ef or e, t he di st r i ct cour t had no r i ght t o add t he t wo ext r a

cri mi nal hi st or y poi nt s.

Thi s dog wi l l not hunt . The conspi r acy char ge i s t he

l i nchpi n of t he gover nment ' s case, and t he i ndi ct ment st at ed t hat

t he l i f espan of t he conspi r acy ran at l east f r om November of 2011

t o J anuar y of 2012. The def endant pl eaded gui l t y t o t hat char ge.

By doi ng so, t he def endant admi t t ed t hat he was gui l t y of

par t i ci pat i ng i n t he char ged conspi r acy as ear l y as November of

2011 ( a t i me when he was s t i l l servi ng hi s super vi sed r el ease

t erm) . See Uni t ed St ates v. Hernndez, 541 F. 3d 422, 424- 25 & n. 1

( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Gr ant , 114 F. 3d 323, 329

( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( "When a cr i mi nal def endant pl eads gui l t y, he

admi t s not onl y t hat he commi t t ed t he f act ual pr edi cat e under l yi ng

hi s convi ct i on, but al so that he commi t t ed t he cr i me char ged

agai nst hi m. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . No mor e i s

exi gi bl e t o j ust i f y t he t wo added cr i mi nal hi st or y poi nt s. 4

4 I f mor e wer e needed and we do not t hi nk t hat i t i s t hepr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t ci t ed evi dence t hat t he def endantand Mur phy were act i vel y sel l i ng crack cocai ne out of t he apar t menti n November and ear l y December . Al t hough t he def endant

unsuccessf ul l y obj ect ed t o t hose por t i ons of t he r epor t , he of f er edno evi dence i n r ef ut at i on. Wher e, as her e, a def endant ' sobj ect i ons t o a pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t ar e whol l yconcl usor y and unsuppor t ed by count er vai l i ng evi dence, t hesent enci ng cour t i s ent i t l ed t o r el y on t he f act s set f or t h i n t hepr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t . See Uni t ed St at es v. Cyr , 337F. 3d 96, 100 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

- 19-


20/28

D. The Pro Se Brief.

Thi s br i ngs us t o t he def endant ' s pro se br i ef , whi ch

advances what amount t o t hr ee addi t i onal assi gnment s of err or . 5 We

f i r st set t he st age and t hen addr ess t he def endant ' s cl ai ms.

1. Setting the Stage. Af t er At t or ney Cl oher t y moved t o

wi t hdr aw, t he di st r i ct cour t conduct ed t wo hear i ngs. At t he f i r st

hear i ng, At t or ney Cl oher t y i ndi cat ed t hat he and t he def endant

di sagr eed about what argument s t o pr esent i n t he suppr essi on

mot i on. He di d not of f er any speci f i cs, but sai d t hat he and t he

def endant had been t r yi ng t o r econci l e t hei r di f f er ences. For hi s

par t , t he def endant pr ovi ded l i t t l e f ur t her i l l umi nat i on.

Pr emi sed i n par t on i t s own obser vat i ons, t he di st r i ct

cour t concl uded t hat t he def endant and At t orney Cl ohert y were

communi cat i ng and, at most , had descr i bed "a vague di sput e" over

l egal st r at egy. The cour t t ol d t he def endant t hat i t woul d not

appoi nt yet a f our t h at t or ney f or hi m. Consequent l y, he had t he

choi ce of cont i nui ng t o be r epr esent ed by At t or ney Cl oher t y or

pr oceedi ng pr o se. Af t er conf er r i ng wi t h At t or ney Cl oher t y, t he

def endant st at ed a pr ef er ence f or r epr esent i ng hi msel f wi t h

At t orney Cl ohert y as st andby counsel . But when t he cour t at t empt ed

t o conduct a wai ver col l oquy, see Far et t a v. Cal i f or ni a, 422 U. S.

5 The pr o se br i ef hi nt s at ot her cl ai ms but t hese ar eei t her i nsuf f i ci ent l y devel oped or pl ai nl y unsuppor t abl e.

- 20-


21/28

806, 835 ( 1975) , t he def endant r ef used t o par t i ci pat e. On t hat

di scor dant not e, t he cour t adj our ned t he hear i ng.

At t or ney Cl oher t y t her eaf t er f i l ed a st at us r epor t ,

st at i ng that he had spoken t o t he def endant and t hat t he def endant

wi shed t o pr oceed pr o se ( wi t h Cl oher t y as st andby counsel ) . The

cour t t hen convened a second hear i ng, at whi ch the def endant once

agai n ur ged t he cour t t o appoi nt new counsel . He expl ai ned t hat he

and At t orney Cl ohert y di sagr eed about whether and how t o rai se t he

i ssue of st andi ng i n connect i on wi t h t he apar t ment sear ch.

At t or ney Cl ohert y suggest ed t hat t he st andi ng i ssue was not t he

best exampl e of t hei r di sagr eement s; t he def endant , he sai d, want ed

hi m t o r ai se ot her ( uni dent i f i ed) i ssues, none of whi ch he

( At t or ney Cl oher t y) t hought vi abl e. The cour t r evi si t ed t he

mat t er , and agai n concl uded t hat t he at t or ney- cl i ent r el at i onshi p

had not exper i enced an i r r et r i evabl e br eakdown. Thus, t he cour t

r ef used t o appoi nt new counsel .

The cour t t hen embar ked on a Far et t a col l oquy. As a

pr ecur sor , i t war ned t he def endant t hat he woul d not r epr esent

hi msel f as ef f ect i vel y as woul d At t or ney Cl oher t y. The def endant

acknowl edged as much but nonethel ess per si st ed i n hi s deci si on to

pr oceed pr o se wi t h st andby counsel . 6

6 At t he f i r st hear i ng, t he concept of "st andby counsel " hadbeen f ul l y expl ai ned t o t he def endant .

- 21-


22/28

Begi nni ng t he Far et t a col l oquy, t he cour t car ef ul l y

i nf or med t he def endant t hat he had a const i t ut i onal r i ght t o

counsel and t hat hi s wai ver of t hat r i ght must be knowi ng and

vol unt ary. The cour t r emi nded t he def endant t hat he was not a

l awyer and t hat At t or ney Cl oher t y woul d al most cert ai nl y do a

bet t er j ob f or hi m. I t t hen war ned t hat " by pr esent i ng cer t ai n

i ssues . . . [ t he def endant ] may act ual l y be pr esent i ng cer t ai n

i nf ormat i on t o t he Cour t or t o the government t hat may be a hazard"

t o hi m. Not wi t hst andi ng t hese admoni t i ons, t he def endant r epeat ed

t hat he want ed t o r epr esent hi msel f and he si gned a wr i t t en

wai ver of hi s r i ght t o counsel .

2. Denial of Motion to Withdraw. The def endant ' s f i r st

pr o se cl ai m of er r or r el at es t o t he di str i ct cour t ' s deni al of

At t or ney Cl oher t y' s mot i on t o wi t hdr aw. 7 The governi ng l egal

pr i nci pl es ar e f ami l i ar . A cr i mi nal def endant ' s Si xth Amendment

r i ght t o counsel i s a r i ght of t he hi ghest or der . See J ohnson v.

Zer bst , 304 U. S. 458, 467- 68 ( 1938) . Thus, an i ndi gent def endant

i n a cr i mi nal case i s ent i t l ed t o appoi nt ed counsel but t hat does

not mean t hat such a def endant has an unbounded r i ght t o t he

par t i cul ar counsel of hi s choosi ng. See Uni t ed St at es v. Myer s,

7 The def endant compl ai ns not onl y t hat t he cour t shoul d havegr ant ed the mot i on to wi t hdr aw but al so t hat t he cour t shoul d haveagr eed t o appoi nt new counsel . Si nce t hese ar e t wo si des of t hesame coi n, see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. D az- Rodr guez, 745 F. 3d586, 590 n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) , we anal yze t he cl ai mof er r or sol el yi n t erms of t he mot i on t o wi t hdr aw.

- 22-


23/28

294 F. 3d 203, 206 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . I n some ci r cumst ances, a

di st r i ct cour t may f or ce a def endant t o choose between pr oceedi ng

wi t h unwant ed counsel or no counsel at al l . See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Pr oct or , 166 F. 3d 396, 402 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

We revi ew t he deni al of a mot i on t o wi t hdr aw f or abuse of

di scr et i on. 8 See Uni t ed St ates v. Reyes, 352 F. 3d 511, 515 ( 1st

Ci r . 2003) . I n conduct i ng t hi s t ami sage, we assay " t he t i mel i ness

of t he mot i on, t he adequacy of t he cour t ' s i nqui r y i nt o t he

def endant ' s compl ai nt , and whet her t he conf l i ct bet ween t he

def endant and hi s counsel was so gr eat t hat i t r esul t ed i n a t ot al

l ack of communi cat i on pr event i ng an adequate def ense. " I d.

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Her e, t he f i r st t wo f act or s

ar e not i n di sput e: t he gover nment concedes t he t i mel i ness of t he

mot i on, and bot h si des agr ee t hat t he cour t ' s i nqui r y was adequat e.

Accor di ngl y, we t r ai n t he l ens of our i nqui r y on t he t hi r d f act or .

Revi ewi ng t he r ecor d t hat was bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t

when i t made the chal l enged r ul i ng, see Uni t ed St at es v. Pi er ce, 60

F. 3d 886, 891 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) , we concl ude that t he cour t di d not

abuse i t s di scr et i on i n denyi ng t he mot i on t o wi t hdr aw. Nei t her

8 I t i s an open quest i on i n t hi s ci r cui t whet her anuncondi t i onal gui l t y pl ea bar s a def endant f r om l at er cont est i ng

t he deni al of a mot i on t o wi t hdr aw. See Uni t ed St at es v. Hi cks,531 F. 3d 49, 54 n. 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Gaf f ney, 469F. 3d 211, 214- 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Here, however , t he governmenthas not ar gued t hat t he def endant i s bar r ed f r om cont est i ng t hedeni al of t he mot i on. Consequent l y, t he government has wai ved t hepoi nt . See Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r .1990) .

- 23-


24/28

t he def endant nor At t or ney Cl oher t y i dent i f i ed t he f ul l ext ent of

t hei r di sagr eement . Al t hough t he def endant noted a di sput e about

st andi ng, At t or ney Cl oher t y i ndi cat ed t hat i ssue was not t he

pr i mar y sour ce of t hei r di scord, and t he def endant pr ovi ded no

f ur t her det ai l s. I n addi t i on, t he r ecor d makes mani f est t hat

At t orney Cl oher t y and the def endant were communi cat i ng at an

accept abl e l evel bef or e, dur i ng, and af t er t he hear i ngs on t he

mot i on t o wi t hdr aw. We hol d, t her ef or e, t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

act ed wi t hi n i t s di scr et i on i n denyi ng t he mot i on t o wi t hdr aw. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Francoi s, 715 F. 3d 21, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( hol di ng

t hat di sdai n f or counsel ' s advi ce was not i r r epar abl e br eakdown

where cl i ent and counsel were communi cat i ng) ; Uni t ed St ates v.

Woodar d, 291 F. 3d 95, 108 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( hol di ng t hat at t or ney' s

r ef usal t o f i l e a mot i on he deemed f r i vol ous, wi t hout mor e, di d not

const i t ut e i r r epar abl e br eakdown) .

3. Waiver Colloquy. The def endant next cl ai ms t hat hi s

wai ver of t he r i ght t o counsel was i nval i d because t he di st r i ct

cour t f ai l ed t o gi ve hi mappr opr i at e advi ce about hi s r i ght s. Thi s

cl ai m l acks f or ce.

To be sure, a cr i mi nal def endant may wai ve hi s r i ght t o

l egal r epr esent at i on. See Far et t a, 422 U. S. at 834. But because

si gni f i cant di sadvant ages accompany sel f - r epr esent at i on, t he t r i al

cour t must ensur e t hat such a wai ver i s knowi ng, i nt el l i gent , and

vol unt ar y. See Woodar d, 291 F. 3d at 109. To t hi s end, t he cour t

- 24-


25/28

must make cer t ai n t hat t he def endant st at es hi s i nt ent t o

r el i nqui sh hi s r i ght t o counsel i n "unequi vocal l anguage. " I d.

Rel at edl y, t he cour t must advi se t he def endant "of t he danger s and

di sadvant ages of sel f - r epr esent at i on, so t hat t he r ecor d wi l l

est abl i sh t hat he knows what he i s doi ng and hi s choi ce i s made

wi t h eyes open. " Far et t a, 422 U. S. at 835 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

Seeki ng t o f i nd sanct uar y i n t hese pr ot ect i ons, t he

def endant ar gues t hat he never expr essed hi s desi r e t o repr esent

hi msel f i n unequi vocal t er ms. Thi s ar gument i s bel i ed by t he

r ecor d. The def endant ' s deci si on t o pr oceed pr o se was st at ed i n

no uncer t ai n t er ms i n t he wr i t t en st at us r epor t t hat At t or ney

Cl oher t y f i l ed wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t on hi s behal f . The

def endant r eaf f i r med t hat deci si on bot h i n hi s r esponse t o t he

cour t ' s quest i oni ng at t he second hear i ng and i n t he wai ver f or m

t hat he executed.

The def endant ' s f al l back posi t i on i s t hat hi s wai ver of

t he r i ght t o counsel was not knowi ng and i nt el l i gent because the

cour t ' s Far et t a war ni ng was i nadequat e. Thi s cl ai mcompr i ses mor e

cr y t han wool .

At a Far et t a hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t i s not r equi r ed

t o make a r ot e r eci t at i on of a det ai l ed scr i pt . See Uni t ed St at es

v. Robi nson, 753 F. 3d 31, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Whi l e a cour t must

do more t han make vague al l usi ons t o t he consequences of a wai ver ,

- 25-


26/28

t he ef f i cacy of t he cour t ' s Far et t a war ni ng must be eval uat ed on

t he basi s of t he r ecor d as a whol e. We wi l l uphol d a wai ver of t he

r i ght t o counsel as l ong as t he r ecor d suppor t s a r easoned

concl usi on t hat t he def endant was f ul l y appr i sed of hi s r i ght t o

counsel and of t he di sadvant ages he woul d encount er shoul d he el ect

t o pr oceed pr o se. See i d. at 44- 45; Francoi s, 715 F. 3d at 30- 31.

The Far et t a war ni ng her e easi l y passes t hrough t hi s

scr een. The di st r i ct cour t war ned t he def endant of t he gener al

danger s of sel f - r epr esent at i on. I ndeed, t he cour t went so f ar as

t o t el l t he def endant t hat i t was "a t er r i bl e i dea" f or hi m t o

r epr esent hi msel f . The cour t al so war ned hi m t hat , wi t hout a

l awyer , he mi ght i nadver t ent l y reveal i nf or mat i on t hat woul d come

back t o bi t e hi m.

Even t hough t he col l oquy was r el at i vel y br i ef , t he r ecor d

as a whol e adequat el y suppor t s t he cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat t he

def endant ' s wai ver of t he r i ght t o counsel was made wi t h hi s eyes

wi de open. See, e. g. , Robi nson, 753 F. 3d at 44- 46; Uni t ed St at es

v. LaBar e, 191 F. 3d 60, 67- 68 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) . The def endant ' s

choi ce may wel l have been f ool hardy, but i t was not uni nf ormed.

4. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. The def endant ' s

r emai ni ng cl ai m i s r oot ed i n t he not i on t hat At t or ney Cl oher t y was

i nef f ect i ve i n t he r un- up t o t he suppr essi on mot i on and t hat ,

t her ef or e, t he def endant had no pr act i cal choi ce but t o go i t

al one. Thi s cl ai m i s not pr oper l y bef or e us.

- 26-


27/28

I t i s wel l - set t l ed t hat f actbound cl ai ms of i nef f ecti ve

assi st ance of counsel , not r ai sed i n t he di st r i ct cour t , cannot be

br oached f or t he f i r st t i me on di r ect r evi ew. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Mal a, 7 F. 3d 1058, 1063 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . Rat her , such cl ai ms

t ypi cal l y must be br ought bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t i n a col l at er al

post - convi ct i on pr oceedi ng. See i d. Al t hough we may make an

occasi onal except i on i n t hose rare i nst ances i n whi ch t he r ecor d i s

suf f i ci ent l y devel oped t o per mi t r easoned consi der at i on of a

pr evi ousl y unexpl or ed i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai mat t he appel l at e

l evel , see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Nat anel , 938 F. 2d 302, 309 ( 1st

Ci r . 1991) , t hi s case f al l s wel l wi t hi n t he compass of t he gener al

r ul e. The r ecor d bel ow i s ut t er l y devoi d of r el evant i nf or mat i on

concerni ng what t r anspi r ed between At t orney Cl ohert y and t he

def endant . The same hol ds t r ue f or t he def endant ' s bel at ed

suggest i on t hat he was f or ced t o pl ead gui l t y because of At t or ney

Cl oher t y' s def i ci ent t r i al pr epar at i on. Consequent l y, we di smi ss

t hi s cl ai m of er r or wi t hout pr ej udi ce t o t he def endant ' s r i ght t o

seek rel i ef pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 2255.

E. A Loose End.

Whi l e t hi s case was pendi ng on appeal , t he Sent enci ng

Commi ssi on adopt ed an amendment t hat r educed t he r ecommended

penal t i es f or many dr ug of f enses by decr easi ng t he appl i cabl e base

of f ense l evel s. See USSG App. C, Amend. 782 ( Nov. 1, 2014) . These

r educt i ons wer e l at er gi ven r et r oact i ve ef f ect . See USSG App. C,

- 27-


28/28

Amend. 788 ( Nov. 1, 2014) . The def endant i nvi t es us t o r emand hi s

case f or r esent enci ng under t hi s amended gui del i ne.

We decl i ne t hi s i nvi t at i on. The r emedy f or a def endant

who seeks r esent enci ng under a ret r oact i ve gui del i ne amendment i s

t o f i l e a mot i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t . See 18 U. S. C.

3582( c) ( 2) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a Cal der n, 578 F. 3d

78, 107- 08 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Chandl er , 534 F. 3d 45,

51 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . We t her ef or e r ej ect t he def endant ' s r equest ;

wi t hout pr ej udi ce, however , t o t he def endant ' s r i ght t o f i l e a

mot i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t seeki ng t hi s r el i ef .

III. CONCLUSION

We need go no f ur t her . For t he r easons el uci dated above,

we af f i r m bot h t he def endant ' s convi ct i on and hi s sent ence. Our

deci si on i s wi t hout pr ej udi ce t o t he def endant ' s r i ght t o r ai se hi s

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m, i f he so chooses, i n a

col l at er al pr oceedi ng under 28 U. S. C. 2255. Our deci si on i s

si mi l ar l y wi t hout pr ej udi ce t o t he def endant ' s r i ght t o seek

r esent enci ng i n t he di st r i ct cour t under t he gui del i ne amendment s

di scussed above.

So Ordered.

- 28-

united states v. jones, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents