United States v. Caramadre, 1st Cir. (2015)

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

1/39

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 14- 101914- 119615- 1125

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J OSEPH CARAMADRE,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF RHODE I SLAND

[ Hon. Wi l l i am E. Smi t h, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge][ Hon. Pat r i ci a A. Sul l i van, U. S. Magi st r at e J udge]

Bef ore

Howar d, Chi ef J udge,Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udge, andLapl ant e, * Di st r i ct J udge.

Randy Ol en, wi t h whom Al an M. Dershowi t z and Rober t F. Weberwer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Donal d C. Lockhar t , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Pet er F. Ner onha, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f or

appel l ee.

December 7, 2015

______________* Of t he Di st r i ct of New Hampshi r e, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/39

- 2 -

SELYA, Circuit Judge. A f eder al gr and j ur y r et ur ned an

i ndi ct ment chargi ng def endant - appel l ant J oseph Caramadr e wi t h

mast er mi ndi ng one of t he most avar i ci ous f r auds i n Rhode I sl and

hi st or y. Car amadr e went t o t r i al , but t hi ngs di d not go wel l f or

hi m and, af t er f our days, he ent er ed i nt o a pl ea agr eement wi t h

t he gover nment . The di st r i ct cour t accept ed hi s changed pl ea.

Some mont hs l at er ( but bef ore sent enci ng) , Caramadr e

exper i enced a change of hear t . Repr esent ed by new counsel , he

sought t o r et r act hi s gui l t y pl ea. Fol l owi ng a mul t i - day

evi dent i ar y hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed hi s mot i on.

Sent enci ng ensued.

Car amadr e' s appeal s, t aken col l ect i vel y, advance an

i nf i ni t y of ar gument s, char act er i zed by cl angor ous sound and

unr est r ai ned f ur y. But f i er y r het or i c al one i s not enough t o

br eat he l i f e i nt o mor i bund ar gument s and, af t er cl ose scrut i ny, we

concl ude t hat Car amadr e' s appeal s ar e wi t hout mer i t . Accor di ngl y,

we af f i r m t he j udgment bel ow.

I. BACKGROUND

We sketch t he or i gi n and t r avel of t he case, assumi ng

t he r eader ' s f ami l i ar i t y wi t h a number of ot her j udi ci al opi ni ons.

See, e. g. , W. Reser ve Li f e Assur . Co. of Ohi o v. ADM Assocs. , LLC,

737 F. 3d 135 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Caramadr e, No. 11-

186, 2014 WL 409336 ( D. R. I . Feb. 3, 2014) ; Uni t ed St ates v.

Caramadr e, No. 11- 186, 2013 WL 7138109 ( D. R. I . Nov. 26, 2013) ;


3/39

- 3 -

Uni t ed St at es v. Caramadr e, No. 11- 186, 2013 WL 7138106 ( D. R. I .

Nov. 6, 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Caramadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d 160

( D. R. I . 2013) ; W. Reser ve Li f e Assur . Co. of Ohi o v. ADM Assocs. ,

LLC, 116 A. 3d 794 ( R. I . 2015) .

Under t he government ' s t heor y of t he case, Caramadr e

a l awyer and account ant and hi s codef endant , Raymour

Radhakr i shnan, engaged f or wel l over a decade i n a scheme t o

def r aud var i ous f i nanci al i nst i t ut i ons. Car amadr e and

Radhakr i shnan i mpl ement ed t he scheme by f r audul ent l y obt ai ni ng the

i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on of t er mi nal l y i l l i ndi vi dual s t hr ough

mat er i al mi sr epr esent at i ons and omi ssi ons. They t hen i nvest ed i n

var i abl e annui t i es and cor por at e bonds wi t h deat h- benef i t

f eat ur es, usi ng t he i dent i t i es of t hese unwi t t i ng i ndi vi dual s as

measur i ng l i ves. When a t er mi nal l y i l l i ndi vi dual di ed, Car amadr e

and Radhakr i shnan cashed i n t he annui t i es and bonds and capt ur ed

t he pr of i t s. 1

Based on t he scope of t he f r aud al l eged i n t he si xty-

si x- count i ndi ct ment and t he l ar ge number of ant i ci pat ed

gover nment wi t nesses, t he t r i al was expect ed t o l ast over t hr ee

mont hs. On November 19, 2012 f our days i nto t he t r i al Car amadr e

and Radhakr i shnan ent ered i nt o pl ea agr eement s and admi t t ed t hei r

1 A good exampl e of how t he scheme wor ked i s f ound i n W.Reserve Li f e Assur . Co. , 737 F. 3d at 136- 39.


4/39

- 4 -

gui l t t o two count s: one count of wi r e f r aud and one count of

conspi r acy t o commi t wi r e f r aud, mai l f r aud, and i dent i t y t hef t .

The di st r i ct cour t accepted t hei r pl eas, and t he gover nment l at er

di smi ssed t he remai ni ng count s. 2

Near l y t wo mont hs passed. Caramadr e' s at t orneys t hen

moved to wi t hdr aw f r om t hei r r epr esent at i on of hi m, and hi s new

counsel i nf or med t he di st r i ct cour t t hat Car amadr e i nt ended t o

seek l eave t o r et r act hi s gui l t y pl ea. Car amadr e f i l ed such a

mot i on on Febr uar y 28, 2013. The gover nment obj ect ed, and t he

di st r i ct cour t hel d a pr ot r act ed evi dent i ar y hear i ng. The cour t

deni ed t he mot i on f r om t he bench at t he concl usi on of t he hear i ng

and f ol l owed up wi t h a f ul l er exposi t i on i n a wr i t t en r escr i pt

i ssued on August 1, 2013. See Caramadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 186.

On December 16, 2013, t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced

Caramadr e t o a si x- year t er m of i mmur ement . The cour t had

pr evi ousl y r ef er r ed t he quest i on of r est i t ut i on t o a magi st r at e

j udge. Pr i or t o t he i mposi t i on of t he pr i son sentence, t he

magi st r at e j udge conduct ed an evi dent i ary hear i ng and recommended

r est i t ut i on of appr oxi mat el y $46, 000, 000. See Caramadr e, 2013 WL

7138109 at *2; Car amadre, 2013 WL 7138106 at *19. Over Car amadre' s

2 Caramadr e' s pl ea agr eement was ent ered i nt o pur suant t oFed. R. Cr i m. P. 11( c) ( 1) ( C) and r equi r ed t hat t he cour t agr ee t obe bound by i t s st i pul at i ons ( i ncl udi ng a t en- year cap on anypr i son sent ence) . The di st r i ct cour t acqui esced.


5/39

- 5 -

pr ot est , t he di st r i ct cour t adopt ed t he magi st r at e j udge' s

r ecommendat i on. See Car amadre, 2014 WL 409336, at *1.

Car amadr e t i mel y appeal ed and, on Sept ember 8, 2014, he

t ender ed hi s openi ng br i ef t o t hi s cour t . The br i ef r ef er r ed t o

st at ement s al l egedl y made by t he di st r i ct cour t at an unr ecor ded

and unt r anscr i bed chambers conf erence hel d on J anuary 15, 2013.

Because t hose st atement s wer e not part of t he record, we st r uck

hi s br i ef and or der ed hi m t o r ef i l e i t wi t hout r ef er ence t o

anyt hi ng supposedl y sai d at t he conf er ence. Caramadr e compl i ed.

But t hat was not t he end of t he mat t er : Car amadr e moved

i n t he di st r i ct cour t f or a st at ement of what had t r anspi r ed at

t he J anuary 15 conf er ence. See Fed. R. App. P. 10( c) . On J anuar y

5, 2015, t he di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed Car amadr e' s ver si on of what

had occur r ed and subst i t ut ed i t s own r ecol l ect i on. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Car amadr e, No. 11- 186 ( D. R. I . J an. 5, 2015) ( unpubl i shed

order) . Caramadr e agai n appeal ed, sparki ng a new r ound of

appel l at e br i ef i ng.

Caramadr e' s appeal s r ai se a gol conda of i ssues. We

di scuss her e onl y those cl ai ms of er r or t hat possess a pat i na of

pl ausi bi l i t y. The r est ar e ei t her pat ent l y mer i t l ess,

i nsuf f i ci ent l y devel oped, or bot h. Consequent l y, we r ej ect t hem

out of hand.


6/39

- 6 -

II. PLEA-WITHDRAWAL MOTION

Car amadr e of f er s sever al ar gument s i n suppor t of hi s

asser t i on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng hi s mot i on t o

wi t hdr aw hi s gui l t y pl ea. These i ncl ude cl ai ms t hat t he cour t

empl oyed t he wr ong l egal st andard i n deci di ng t he mot i on, t hat t he

cour t abused i t s di scret i on i n bal anci ng t he r el evant f act or s, and

t hat t he cour t "exhi bi t ed bi as and pr ej udged t he mot i on. " We f i nd

none of t hese cl ai ms per suasi ve.

A. Legal Standard.

The l ogi cal st ar t i ng poi nt i s Car amadre' s cl ai mt hat t he

di st r i ct cour t used an "er r oneous" l egal st andar d when r ul i ng on

t he mot i on t o wi t hdr aw. Thi s cl ai m pr esent s a pur e quest i on of

l aw and, t hus, engenders de novo r evi ew. 3 See Uni t ed St at es v.

Gat es, 709 F. 3d 58, 69 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

I t i s common gr ound t hat a def endant has no absol ut e

r i ght t o wi t hdr aw a gui l t y pl ea. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos-

Mej a, 721 F. 3d 12, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ; Gat es, 709 F. 3d at 68.

When a def endant moves t o wi t hdr aw a gui l t y pl ea af t er t he cour t

has accepted i t but bef ore t he cour t has sent enced hi m, he may do

so onl y i f he "can show a f ai r and j ust r eason f or r equest i ng t he

wi t hdr awal . " Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11( d) ( 2) ( B) ; see Gat es, 709 F. 3d at

3 We bypass t he gover nment ' s asser t i on t hat t hi s cl ai m i spr ocedur al l y def aul t ed and, t her ef or e, subj ect t o pl ai n er r orr evi ew. Under any st andar d of r evi ew, t he cl ai m f ai l s.


7/39

- 7 -

68; Uni t ed St at es v. Mar r er o- Ri ver a, 124 F. 3d 342, 347 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) . The bur den r est s wi t h t he def endant t o make t hi s showi ng.

See Marr ero- Ri ver a, 124 F. 3d at 347.

Cr i t i cal t o t he pl eawi t hdr awal i nqui r y i s whet her t he

or i gi nal gui l t y pl ea was knowi ng, i nt el l i gent , and vol unt ar y. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Aker , 181 F. 3d 167, 170 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( ci t i ng

Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11) . Ot her f act or s, however , may wei gh i n t he

bal ance. The cour t may consi der , f or exampl e, " t he pl ausi bi l i t y

and wei ght of t he r eason gi ven f or t he wi t hdr awal , t he t i mi ng of

t he r equest , whet her t he def endant i s now col or abl y asser t i ng l egal

i nnocence, and whet her t he or i gi nal pl ea was pur suant t o a pl ea

agr eement . " I d. I f t hese f actor s, t aken t oget her , t i l t i n f avor

of al l owi ng wi t hdr awal , t he cour t must t hen wei gh t he pr ej udi ce

t hat t he gover nment woul d suf f er i f t he pl ea wer e t o be vacated.

See Gates, 709 F. 3d at 69; Uni t ed St ates v. Doyl e, 981 F. 2d 591,

594 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) .

I n t he case at hand, t he di st r i ct cour t expr essl y

acknowl edged t hat t he "f ai r and j ust r eason" st andar d cont r ol l ed

i t s i nqui r y. Car amadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 166. I t proceeded t o

i dent i f y and eval uat e al l of t he r el evant f act or s. See i d. at

166, 181- 86. Car amadr e nonet hel ess per si st s i n hi s cl ai mof er r or ,

hangi ng hi s hopes on t wo sent ences i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s l engt hy

r escr i pt : "As t he above di scussi on makes pel l uci d, Car amadr e

ent er ed i nt o a knowi ng, i nt el l i gent , and vol unt ar y pl ea, and t hus


8/39

- 8 -

no j ust r eason exi sts f or al l owi ng hi mt o wi t hdr aw i t . St i l l , f or

compl et eness sake, t he Cour t wi l l br i ef l y addr ess t he addi t i onal

f act or s enumer at ed by t he Fi r st Ci r cui t . " I d. at 181. Car amadr e

ur ges t hat t hese sent ences demonst r at e t hat t he cour t conf l at ed

t he "gener ous" f ai r and j ust r eason f or per mi t t i ng wi t hdr awal of

a gui l t y pl ea wi t h t he "st r i ct er " st andar d f or hol di ng a pl ea

i nval i d.

Thi s i s nonsense on st er oi ds. Rul e 11 consi derat i ons

are a paramount concer n i n a pl eawi t hdr awal i nqui r y. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Sant i ago Mi r anda, 654 F. 3d 130, 136 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Ri char dson, 225 F. 3d 46, 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2000)

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Cot al - Cr espo, 47 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r .

1995) ) . Thus, t he cour t bel ow appr opr i at el y f ocused, at t he out set

of i t s i nqui r y, on whet her Car amadr e' s pl ea was knowi ng,

i nt el l i gent , and vol unt ar y.

Here, moreover , Caramadr e' s pl eawi t hdr awal mot i on

whi ch al l eged t hat hi s pl ea had been i nvol unt ary and t hat he was

not compet ent t o have t ender ed i t i nvi t ed t hi s ver y f ocus.

Car amadr e cannot now f aul t t he di st r i ct cour t f or accept i ng t hi s

i nvi t at i on and begi nni ng i t s anal ysi s wi t h t he ver y f act or s t hat

he hi msel f had st r essed.

I n any event , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not si mpl y exami ne

Rul e 11 consi der at i ons and st op t her e. Al t hough t he cour t st at ed

t hat i t woul d addr ess t he ot her f act or s "br i ef l y, " Car amadr e, 957


9/39

- 9 -

F. Supp. 2d at 181, t hi s was not hi ng mor e than sel f - depr ecat i ng

l i t ot es. What f ol l owed was a t hor ough anal ysi s of t he ot her

f act or s. See i d. at 181- 86.

The shor t of i t i s t hat Car amadre' s cont ent i on t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t pr emi sed i t s deci si on ent i r el y on t he val i di t y of

hi s pl ea (and, t hus, used an er r oneous l egal st andar d) t ur ns a

bl i nd eye t o a gener ous por t i on of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r easoni ng.

Readi ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r escr i pt as a whol e, Car amadr e' s cl ai m

i s f anci f ul . We summar i l y r ej ect i t . 4

B. Abuse of Discretion.

I n t he absence of l egal er r or , we r evi ew deci si ons

denyi ng pl eawi t hdr awal mot i ons sol el y f or abuse of di scr et i on.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Mer r i t t , 755 F. 3d 6, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Wi t hi n t hi s r ubr i c, f i ndi ngs of f act ar e r evi ewed f or cl ear er r or .

See Gates, 709 F. 3d at 69. The def endant bears t he devoi r of

per suasi on. See Mer r i t t , 755 F. 3d at 9.

4 Caramadr e pl aces heavy rel i ance on Ni nt h Ci r cui t pr ecedenthol di ng t hat "a def endant need not pr ove t hat hi s pl ea i s i nval i di n or der t o meet hi s bur den of est abl i shi ng a f ai r and j ust r easonf or wi t hdr awal . " Uni t ed St at es v. Or t ega- Ascani o, 376 F. 3d 879,884 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ; accor d Uni t ed St ates v. Mayweather , 634 F. 3d498, 504 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Gar ci a, 401 F. 3d 1008,1012 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) . We do not t hi nk t hat t hese pr ecedent s ar ei nconsi st ent wi t h t he l egal st andar d ar t i cul at ed i n our own casesand f ai t hf ul l y appl i ed by t he cour t bel ow. Even i f t he Ni nt hCi r cui t ' s st andar d di f f er s f r om our own, any such di ver gence woul dnot const i t ut e a compel l i ng r eason f or di st ur bi ng a di st r i ctcour t ' s appl i cat i on of bi ndi ng ci r cui t pr ecedent .


10/39

- 10 -

Car amadr e' s pr i mar y ar gument i s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

abused i t s di scr et i on i n bal anci ng t he f act or s r el evant t o whet her

he shoul d be al l owed t o wi t hdr aw hi s pl ea. I n hi s vi ew, t he

di st r i ct cour t di d not appr eci at e t hat a "per f ect st or m" of event s

"over bor e hi s wi l l and i nduced hi m t o ent er a gui l t y pl ea" t hat

was i nvol unt ary. Thi s argument has several subset s, whi ch we

di scuss bel ow.

1. The Rule 11 Colloquy. The most heat ed among t hese

sub- ar gument s i s Car amadr e' s cl ai m t hat t he change- of - pl ea

col l oquy was t oo scant y wi t h r espect t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

i nqui r y i nt o hi s medi cat i ons and hi st or y of depr essi on. At t he

change- of - pl ea hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t asked Car amadr e i f he

was bei ng t r eated f or ment al i l l ness. He r esponded t hat he had

been t r eat ed f or depr essi on "bot h l at el y and f or t he l ast 20

year s. " One of Car amadr e' s l awyer s then pr of f er ed a l i st of

Car amadr e' s cur r ent medi cat i ons. The cour t r evi ewed t hi s l i st and

asked Car amadr e t o conf i r m t hat he f ul l y under st ood al l t he

pr oceedi ngs and t hat hi s medi cat i ons di d not i mpede hi s

under st andi ng. Caramadr e and hi s counsel conf i r med both poi nt s.

Bef or e us, Car amadr e compl ai ns t hat t he cour t f ai l ed t o

pr obe deepl y enough i nt o t he ef f ect s of hi s medi cat i ons.

Rel atedl y, he suggest s t hat hi s counsel shoul d not have vouched

f or hi s cl ar i t y of mi nd wi t hout consul t i ng hi s physi ci ans.


11/39

- 11 -

We st ar t wi t h f i r st pr i nci pl es. Wher e, as her e, a

def endant conf i r ms dur i ng a change- of - pl ea col l oquy t hat he i s

t aki ng medi cat i on, t he di st r i ct cour t has a dut y t o i nqui r e i nt o

t he ef f ect s of t he medi cat i on and t he def endant ' s capaci t y t o pl ead

gui l t y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Savi non- Acost a, 232 F. 3d 265, 268

( 1st Ci r . 2000) . The di sposi t i ve f eat ur e of t hi s i nqui r y i s

whet her t he medi cat i on i s i n f act causi ng such an i mpai r ment . See

i d. A di st r i ct cour t of t en may sat i sf y t hi s basi c obl i gat i on when

i t quer i es a def endant about whet her t he medi cat i on he i s t aki ng

has i mpai r ed hi s abi l i t y t o under st and t he pr oceedi ngs. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Mor r i set t e, 429 F. 3d 318, 322 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ; Cody v.

Uni t ed St at es, 249 F. 3d 47, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Romn- Or ench, ___ F. App' x ___, ___ ( 1st Ci r . 2015) [ No.

13- 2082, sl i p op. at 4] . But cont ext i s cr uci al , and i n some

si t uat i ons t he cour t ' s obl i gat i on does not end t her e. Thus, t he

"bet t er pr acti ce" i s f or a di st r i ct cour t "t o i dent i f y whi ch dr ugs

a def endant i s t aki ng, how r ecent l y t hey have been t aken and i n

what quant i t y, and ( so f ar as possi bl e) t he pur pose and

consequences. " Savi non- Acost a, 232 F. 3d at 268.

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t i nqui r ed i nt o what medi cat i ons

Caramadr e was t aki ng and Caramadr e' s abi l i t y t o underst and t he

pr oceedi ngs. The cour t al so el i ci t ed f r om Car amadr e an assurance

t hat hi s medi cat i ons wer e not pr event i ng hi m f r om par t i ci pat i ng

f ul l y i n t he change- of - pl ea col l oquy. I n addi t i on, t he cour t had


12/39

- 12 -

some ot her assur ances. For one t hi ng, Caramadr e' s behavi or dur i ng

t he change- of - pl ea col l oquy cor r obor at ed hi s st at ement s t o t he

cour t . For anot her t hi ng, Car amadr e' s l awyer vouched f or hi s

cl i ent ' s abi l i t y t o under st and t he pr oceedi ngs. A di st r i ct cour t

may r easonabl y rel y on t he assur ances of t he def endant and hi s

counsel t o hel p t o ascer t ai n t he def endant ' s ment al cl ar i t y. 5 See

i d. at 269. Fi nal l y, t he cour t ' s dut y t o del ve i nt o t he speci f i cs

of a def endant ' s medi cat i ons i s r el axed t o some degr ee wher e, as

her e, t her e ar e no "other i dent i f i abl e r ed f l ags i n [ t he

def endant ' s] per f or mance at t he hear i ng. " Uni t ed St at es v. Kenney,

756 F. 3d 36, 47 ( 1st Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, 135 S. Ct . 770 ( 2014) .

To be sure, Car amadre had an i mpress i ve l i st of

medi cat i ons, al ong wi t h a hi st or y of depr essi on and anxi et y. Gi ven

t hese f acts, we t hi nk that t he di st r i ct cour t ' s handl i ng of t hi s

i ssue was mar gi nal at best . A deeper di ve i nt o t he ef f ect s of t he

5 We do not accept Caramadr e' s suggest i on t hat a l awyer mustconsul t wi t h hi s cl i ent ' s ment al heal t h pr ovi der s bef or e maki ngsuch a r epr esent at i on t o t he cour t . Caramadr e can ci t e noaut hor i t y f or such a pr oposi t i on because none exi st s. Thi s i s notsur pr i si ng: a l awyer wor ks cl osel y wi t h a cr i mi nal def endant andi s t ypi cal l y i n a good posi t i on t o make an i nf or med l ay j udgmentabout whether t he def endant underst ands t he pr oceedi ngs andappr eci at es t hei r i mpor t . See Uni t ed St at es v. Pel l er i t o, 878F. 2d 1535, 1542 & n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ; see al so Mi r anda- Gonzl ezv. Uni t ed St at es, 181 F. 3d 164, 167 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( not i ng t hatdi st r i ct cour t "t ook gr eat pai ns t o ensur e f ai r ness" i n aski ngboth the pr osecut or and def ense counsel about t he def endant ' sabi l i t y t o ent er a gui l t y pl ea "i n l i ght of t he di scl osur esconcer ni ng hi s medi cat i on and recent psychi at r i c hi st or y") .


13/39

- 13 -

medi cat i ons and Caramadr e' s psychi at r i c hi st ory may wel l have been

war r ant ed. But our st andar d of r evi ew i s def er ent i al , see

Mor r i set t e, 429 F. 3d at 322, and i n al l event s, t wo ot her set s of

consi der at i ons i mpel us t o f i nd t hat any er r or was har ml ess.

Fi r st , Car amadr e has never made an expl i ci t cl ai m t hat

ei t her hi s medi cat i on r egi me or hi s hi st or y of depr essi on and

anxi et y act ual l y i mpai r ed hi s abi l i t y t o under st and t he change-

of - pl ea col l oquy. Though he vi gor ousl y assai l s t he manner i n whi ch

t he di st r i ct cour t conduct ed t hat col l oquy, hi s assi gnment s of

pr ocedur al er r or ar e unt et her ed t o any actual consequences. As

such, t hey cannot gr ound hi s cl ai m t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused

i t s di scr et i on i n denyi ng hi s pl eawi t hdr awal mot i on. See Savi non-

Acost a, 232 F. 3d at 268 ( expl ai ni ng t hat "mer el y t echni cal f ai l ur es

t o compl y wi t h Rul e 11 are of t en f ound harml ess" ) ; Uni t ed St ates

v. Pel l er i t o, 878 F. 2d 1535, 1542 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ( expl ai ni ng t hat

" [ t ] her e must be some evi dence that t he medi cat i on af f ect ed [ t he

def endant ' s] r at i onal i t y") .

Second, t he l engt hy evi dent i ar y hear i ng t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t conduct ed on Car amadr e' s pl eawi t hdr awal mot i on

yi el ded f ul l y suppor t abl e f i ndi ngs t hat r ef ut ed hi s cl ai m t hat

ei t her hi s medi cat i ons or hi s ment al heal t h hi st or y t ai nt ed hi s

pl ea. As di scussed i n gr eat er det ai l i nf r a, t he doct or s who

submi t t ed af f i davi t s r egar di ng Car amadr e' s ment al st at e i n t he

per i od l eadi ng up t o hi s gui l t y pl ea f ai l ed t o cast any pl ausi bl e


14/39

- 14 -

doubt on hi s r at i onal i t y. Fur t her mor e, Car amadr e' s f or mer

at t or neys t est i f i ed ext ensi vel y about hi s over al l l uci di t y and

cl ar i t y of mi nd.

That compl et es t hi s phase of our i nqui r y. Vi ewi ng t he

r ecor d as a whol e, we can di scern no r ever si bl e er r or i n t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s Rul e 11 col l oquy.

2. Caramadre's Stated Reasons. Car amadre next advances

a sl ew of ar gument s under pi nni ng hi s cl ai m t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

i mpr ovi dent l y rej ect ed hi s st at ed r easons f or seeki ng t o wi t hdr aw

hi s pl ea. We br i ef l y addr ess t he l east f r i vol ous of t hese

argument s t hat he was not competent at t he t i me of t he pl ea

hear i ng, t hat hi s counsel pr ovi ded i nef f ect i ve assi st ance, and

t hat he bel i eved t hat he woul d be di ssembl i ng i f he ent er ed a

gui l t y pl ea and ot her wi se r el y on t he di st r i ct cour t ' s cogent

anal ysi s. See Caramadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 181- 86.

Caramadr e argues t hat hi s ment al st ate was t oo f r agi l e

t o per mi t hi mt o ent er a val i d pl ea. He at t r i but es hi s i nst abi l i t y

bot h t o hi s depr essed ment al st at e and t o hi s wi f e' s emot i onal

br eakdown on t he second day of t r i al . He cl ai ms t hat t he

conf l uence of t hese condi t i ons cat apul t ed hi m i nt o a "downwar d

spi r al , " r ender i ng hi m i ncompet ent t o ent er a gui l t y pl ea.

To succeed on such a cl ai m, Car amadre must show mor e

t han a mer e "sensi t i v[ i t y] t o ext er nal consi der at i ons. "

Pel l er i t o, 878 F. 2d at 1541. Rat her , he must show t hat hi s


15/39

- 15 -

deci si on t o change hi s pl ea occur r ed under so much dur ess t hat i t

coul d no l onger be consi der ed a pr oduct of f r ee wi l l . See i d.

I n an at t empt t o car r y t hi s bur den, Caramadr e submi t t ed

af f i davi t s f r om t wo of hi s doct or s, an af f i davi t f r om hi s wi f e' s

doct or , and an af f i davi t f r om a psychi at r i c consul t ant . The

di st r i ct cour t r evi ewed t hese submi ssi ons and f ound t hem want i ng.

See Caramadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 169- 71. Af t er car ef ul

consi der at i on, we concl ude t hat t hi s f i ndi ng was wel l wi t hi n t he

enci nctur e of t he cour t ' s di scr et i on.

The af f i davi t s of Car amadre' s doct or s wer e of l i t t l e

f or ce. Whi l e t hey pur por t ed t o descr i be hi s ment al st at e dur i ng

t he f our days of t r i al , nei t her doct or had eval uat ed Car amadr e ( or

even spoken t o hi m) dur i ng t hat per i od. By t he same t oken, t he

doct or who cared f or Mr s. Caramadr e vent ur ed no opi ni on r egardi ng

Caramadr e' s ment al heal t h.

The af f i davi t of Car amadre' s r et ai ned exper t was mor e t o

t he poi nt : t hat physi ci an st at ed t hat i t was " r easonabl e t o

concl ude" t hat Caramadr e was not compet ent t o pl ead. But even

t hi s wi t ness di d not opi ne t hat Car amadr e i n f act l acked t he

capaci t y to pl ead.

We t hi nk i t i s si gni f i cant t hat t he di str i ct cour t , i n

r ef usi ng t o f i nd Caramadr e i ncompet ent t o pl ead based on t hese

f our af f i davi t s, di d not vi ew t hem i n a vacuum. The cour t

appr opr i at el y consi der ed, f or exampl e, Caramadr e' s own


16/39

- 16 -

par t i ci pat i on i n negot i at i ng t he t er ms of t he pl ea agr eement , see

Uni t ed St ates v. Ramos, 810 F. 2d 308, 313 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ; t he

concl usi ons of Car amadr e' s pr i nci pal l awyer about hi s cl i ent ' s

ment al cl ar i t y, see Savi non- Acost a, 232 F. 3d at 269; and t he

cour t ' s own observat i ons of Caramadr e over a pr ol onged per i od, see

Uni t ed St at es v. Buckl ey, 847 F. 2d 991, 998- 1000 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ;

see al so Romn- Or ench, ___ F. App' x at ___ [ sl i p op. at 5] .

Bal anci ng t he t epi d evi dence cont ai ned i n t he af f i davi t s

agai nst t he cour t ' s f i r st - hand knowl edge of what had t r anspi r ed,

we descr y no abuse of di scr et i on i n i t s det er mi nat i on t hat

Caramadr e' s asser t i on of i ncompet ence was not a f ai r and j ust

r eason f or wi t hdr awi ng hi s pl ea. When al l i s sai d and done,

Car amadr e i s si mpl y compl ai ni ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t wei ghed

hi s pr of f er ed evi dence l ess heavi l y t han he woul d have l i ked. That

i s not enough: a di st r i ct cour t does not abuse i t s di scr et i on when

i t eval uates a body of evi dence, chooses bet ween t wo i nf erences

whi ch, t hough conf l i ct i ng, ar e bot h r at i onal , and of f er s pl ausi bl e

r easons f or i t s choi ce. See Pel l er i t o, 878 F. 2d at 1538.

The case l aw suppl i es a f i nal check. When t he r esul t s

of t he evi dent i ar y hear i ng ar e consi der ed, Car amadr e' s case i s not

mat er i al l y di f f er ent f r om t he mi ne- r un of anal ogous cases. See,

e. g. , Sant i ago Mi r anda, 654 F. 3d at 137- 39 ( uphol di ng pl ea wher e

def endant ar gued i nvol unt ar i ness based on pr escr i pt i on dr ug abuse,

l ack of sl eep, and f ami l i al pr essur e) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Sousa, 468


17/39

- 17 -

F. 3d 42, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( uphol di ng pl ea despi t e def endant ' s

ar gument t hat "di st r essi ng news" about wi f e' s t er mi nal i l l ness

i mpai r ed hi s capaci t y to pl ead) ; Aker , 181 F. 3d at 170- 71

( uphol di ng pl ea not wi t hst andi ng def endant ' s cl ai m of depr essi on

over wi f e' s deat h and i nabi l i t y t o sl eep) ; Pel l er i t o, 878 F. 2d at

1541- 42 ( uphol di ng pl ea where def endant cl ai med "an agi t at ed

emot i onal st at e" al ong wi t h abuse of ant i - anxi et y dr ugs) .

Nor mal l y, such si t uat i ons ar e f act - speci f i c and, t hus, ar e apt t o

be gr i st f or t he di st r i ct cour t ' s mi l l . See Mer r i t t , 755 F. 3d at

9 ( not i ng t hat "a di st r i ct cour t ' s cl ose r el at i onshi p t o t he pl ea

pr ocess af f or ds i t a super i or coi gn of vant age") ; Pel l er i t o, 878

F. 2d at 1538 ( not i ng t hat , when "[ c] onf r ont ed wi t h an at t empt at

pl ea r et r act i on, t he t r i al j udge must make an i di ocrat i c,

par t i cul ar i st i c, f act bound assessment " ) . Based on t he t eachi ngs

of t he case l aw, we wi l l not second- guess t he t r i er ' s i nf or med

det er mi nat i on of t he vol unt ar i ness of t he def endant ' s pl ea wi t hout

good r eason. See Uni t ed St at es v. Aust i n, 948 F. 2d 783, 786 ( 1st

Ci r . 1991) . I n t hi s i nst ance, we di scer n no good r eason: t he

di st r i ct cour t r evi ewed al l of t he evi dence and suppor t abl y f ound

t hat nei t her Car amadr e' s hi st or y of depr essi on and anxi et y nor hi s

wi f e' s breakdown compr i sed a f ai r and j ust r eason al l owi ng hi m t o

r et r act hi s pl ea. See Caramadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 168- 74.

Car amadr e has of f er ed not hi ng t hat woul d gi ve us a pr i nci pl ed basi s

t o second- guess t hi s f i ndi ng.


18/39

- 18 -

3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Car amadr e goes

on t o contend t hat he shoul d have been al l owed t o wi t hdraw hi s

gui l t y pl ea because hi s f i r st set of at t or neys pr ovi ded i nef f ect i ve

assi st ance t o hi m. Once he per cei ved hi s at t or neys' i nept i t ude at

t r i al , hi s t hesi s r uns, he "sudden[ l y] " came t o t he r eal i zat i on

t hat he had no choi ce but t o pl ead gui l t y and t hr ow hi msel f upon

t he mer cy of t he cour t . Thi s cont ent i on i s hopel ess.

The cour t bel ow accurat el y r ehear sed t he st andar d f or

assessi ng an i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai mi n t he cont ext

of a pl eawi t hdr awal mot i on. See Caramadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at

174- 75. I n f i ne, t he chal l enger must demonst r at e t hat counsel ' s

per f or mance f el l bel ow an obj ect i ve t hr eshol d of r easonabl e car e

and t hat t hi s def i ci ent per f or mance pr ej udi ced hi m. See Tur ner v.

Uni t ed St at es, 699 F. 3d 578, 584 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ; see gener al l y

St r i ckl and v. Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668, 687 ( 1984) . I n t he pl ea-

wi t hdr awal cont ext , t he pr ej udi ce el ement r equi r es a showi ng of "a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but f or counsel ' s er r or s, he woul d

not have pl eaded gui l t y and woul d have i nsi st ed on goi ng t o t r i al . "

Moreno- Espada v. Uni t ed St ates, 666 F. 3d 60, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Col n- Tor r es, 382 F. 3d 76, 86 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) ) ; see Uni t ed St at es v. I som, 85 F. 3d 831, 837 ( 1st Ci r .

1996) .

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y expl ai ned t hat

"[ c] ounsel ' s al l eged i nef f ect i veness i s onl y r el evant t o t he


19/39

- 19 -

ext ent i t af f ect ed Car amadr e' s deci si on t o pl ead gui l t y, "

Caramadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 174 n. 9, i t s anal ysi s f ocused on t he

t r i al per f or mance of Car amadr e' s l awyer s ( speci f i cal l y, t hei r

pur por t ed f ai l ur e to i nvest i gat e wi t nesses and cr oss- exami ne them

adequatel y) . Thi s f ocus was mi spl aced: when a def endant pl eads

gui l t y and l at er t r i es t o wi t hdr aw hi s pl ea, t he i nef f ect i ve

assi st ance of counsel i nqui r y must f ocus on hi s l awyer ' s

pr epar at i on, advi ce, and over al l per f or mance i n counsel i ng t he

def endant about whet her t o pl ead gui l t y. See Aust i n, 948 F. 2d at

786- 87; Uni t ed St ates v. DeSi mone, 736 F. Supp. 2d 477, 486 ( D. R. I .

2010) .

Thi s i s not t o suggest t hat t r i al per f or mance i s whol l y

i r r el evant t o t he i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel i nqui r y i n t he

gui l t y pl ea cont ext . A l awyer ' s t r i al per f or mance may be so

def i ci ent t hat i t compel s a def endant t o pl ead under dur ess. But

such t r i al per f or mance i s r el evant t o t he i nef f ect i ve assi st ance

i nqui r y onl y t o t he ext ent t hat i t af f ect s t he knowi ng and

vol unt ar y nat ur e of a def endant ' s deci si on t o pl ead gui l t y.

Gi ven t hi s l egal l andscape, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ocus

on t he t r i al per f ormance of Caramadr e' s l awyer s was mi spl aced.

Car amadr e di d not t i e hi s counsel ' s t r i al per f or mance t o t he

vol unt ar i ness of hi s gui l t y pl ea and, t hus, t he meat of hi s

argument t hat he woul d not have pl eaded gui l t y had hi s counsel

per f or med bet t er at t r i al i s i napposi t e. By hi s f r ami ng of t hi s


20/39

- 20 -

i ssue, Car amadr e at t empt ed t o shoehor n a cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve

assi st ance at t r i al i nt o a pl eawi t hdr awal i nqui r y. That at t empt

necessar i l y f ai l s . 6 See I som, 85 F. 3d at 837; Aust i n, 948 F. 2d at

786.

Caramadr e' s assi gnment of er r or col l apses when we

r eor i ent t he i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel i nqui r y al ong t he

pr oper axi s. The r ecor d does not suppor t a cl ai m t hat , but f or

hi s at t or neys' poor advi ce about t he desi r abi l i t y of a pl ea,

Caramadr e "woul d not have pl eaded gui l t y and woul d have i nsi st ed

on goi ng t o t r i al . " Mor eno- Espada, 666 F. 3d at 64 ( quot i ng Col n-

Tor r es, 382 F. 3d at 86) . Nor does Car amadre expl ai n why t he advi ce

he was gi ven was def i ci ent . So, t oo, he whol l y negl ect s t o expl ai n

why, gi ven bet t er advi ce, he woul d have want ed t he t r i al t o

cont i nue.

That ends t hi s aspect of t he mat t er . Car amadre has not

of f er ed any suppor t f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat hi s at t or neys wer e

def i ci ent i n advi si ng hi m about hi s gui l t y pl ea. Nor di d he make

any devel oped ar gument t o t hi s ef f ect bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t .

6 At any r at e, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat Car amadr e' sl awyer s had per f ormed abl y, see Caramadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 175,and per scr ut at i on of t he r ecor d suppor t s t hat concl usi on. Even i fCar amadr e' s ar gument s can somehow be const r ued as suggest i ng t hathi s l awyer s' t r i al per f or mance r ender ed hi s pl ea i nvol unt ar y, wer ej ect t hi s suggest i on.


21/39

- 21 -

Any such argument i s, t her ef ore, doubl y wai ved. See Uni t ed St ates

v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) .

4. The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the

Truth. Car amadr e has one l ast shot i n hi s sl i ng. Al f or d pl eas

asi de, 7 a def endant who wi shes t o pl ead gui l t y to a cr i mi nal charge

must admi t t hat he commi t t ed t he act s upon whi ch t he char ge i s

pr edi cat ed. See Uni t ed St at es v. Br oce, 488 U. S. 563, 570 ( 1989) .

That admi ssi on must be t r ut hf ul ; mer e l i p ser vi ce i s not enough.

Her e, Caramadr e admi t t ed hi s gui l t when he changed hi s pl ea. I n

hi s pl ea wi t hdr awal mot i on, however , he rever sed cour se and cl ai med

t hat he had l i ed wi t h t he knowl edge and encour agement of hi s

l awyer s. The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t hi s cl ai m, see Car amadr e,

957 F. Supp. 2d at 185, and so do we.

Caramadr e at t empt s t o bol st er hi s ver si on of event s by

descr i bi ng t wo communi cat i ons t hat he had wi t h hi s at t or neys. For

one t hi ng, pr i or t o t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng, Car amadr e sent an

e- mai l t o one of hi s f or mer l awyer s i nqui r i ng about t he possi bi l i t y

of an Al f or d pl ea, whi ch "woul d el i mi nat e m[ y] needi ng t o l i e. "

7 An Al f ord pl ea occur s when a def endant ent er s a gui l t y pl eawi t hout admi t t i ng gui l t . See Uni t ed St at es v. Bi er d, 217 F. 3d 15,17 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . Thi s pr ocedur e dr aws i t s name f r om t heSupr eme Cour t deci si on t hat sanct i oned i t . See Nor t h Car ol i na v.Al f or d, 400 U. S. 25 ( 1970) . Ther e, t he Cour t hel d t hat " [ a] ni ndi vi dual accused of cr i me may vol unt ar i l y, knowi ngl y, andunder st andi ngl y consent t o t he i mposi t i on of a pr i son sent enceeven i f he i s unwi l l i ng or unabl e t o admi t hi s par t i ci pat i on i nt he act s const i t ut i ng t he cri me. " I d. at 37.


22/39

- 22 -

For another t hi ng, Caramadr e says t hat he t ol d one of hi s f ormer

at t orneys on t he ni ght bef ore he changed hi s pl ea t hat he woul d

"be l yi ng" i f he admi t t ed gui l t .

Conf essi ng to t he commi ssi on of a f el ony does not al ways

come easi l y ( par t i cul ar l y f or a per son who, l i ke Car amadr e, had

been hol di ng hi msel f out as a pi l l ar of t he communi t y and l i vi ng

a l i f e of hi gh- prof i l e respect abi l i t y) . I t i s , t heref ore, not

uncommon f or persons accused of r epr ehensi bl e cr i mes t o waf f l e

even when di scussi ng t he extent of t hei r i nvol vement wi t h t hei r

counsel . That may wel l be what happened here: i n conver sat i ons

wi t h hi s counsel , Car amadr e equi vocat ed f r om t i me t o t i me about

hi s gui l t .

The cheese became bi ndi ng, however , when t he change- of -

pl ea hear i ng began and Car amadr e f aced t he di st r i ct cour t . That

i s, l i t er al l y and f i gur at i vel y, t he moment of t r ut h and i n t hi s

i nst ance, Caramadr e unhesi t at i ngl y agr eed under oat h wi t h t he

pr osecut or ' s ver si on of t he rel evant event s and unambi guousl y

admi t t ed hi s gui l t . When Caramadr e sang a much di f f erent song

dur i ng t he pl eawi t hdr awal hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned

t hat he was prevar i cat i ng t hen and t hat he had t ol d t he t r ut h at

t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng. Thi s det er mi nat i on was nothi ng more

or l ess t han a credi bi l i t y cal l and, as such, i s deser vi ng of

consi der abl e def er ence. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Pat r one, 948


23/39

- 23 -

F. 2d 813, 816 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Gr een, 887 F. 2d

25, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) .

I n addi t i on, t he cour t ' s det er mi nat i on was consi st ent

wi t h t he t est i mony of Caramadr e' s f ormer at t orneys. They

vouchsaf ed t hat , based on t hei r i nvest i gat i on and Car amadr e' s

admi ssi ons t o t hemover t he cour se of t hei r extended r epr esent at i on

of hi m, t hey wer e convi nced t hat he was f act ual l y gui l t y and t hat

hi s admi ssi ons of gui l t at t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng wer e genui ne.

To ci nch t he mat t er , Car amadre' s f or mer at t or neys "emphasi zed [ t o

Car amadr e] t he i mpor t ance and necessi t y of t el l i ng t he t r ut h and

not l yi ng t o t he [ c] our t " at t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng.

Car amadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 185. The di st r i ct cour t cr edi t ed

t he f or mer at t or neys' t est i mony, see i d. , and t he r ecor d cont ai ns

no compel l i ng r eason f or r ej ect i ng t hat assessment .

I n an ef f or t t o bl unt t he f or ce of t hi s r easoni ng,

Car amadr e posi t s t hat hi s case i s anal ogous t o Uni t ed St at es v.

DeSi mone, 736 F. Supp. 2d 477 ( D. R. I . 2010) . Ther e, t he def endant

di d not agr ee wi t h t he r eci t at i on of t he f act s cont ai ned i n hi s

pl ea agr eement and asked hi s at t orney whether he had t o l i e i n

or der t o pl ead gui l t y. See i d. at 479- 80. The at t or ney "l ef t

[ t he] [ d] ef endant wi t h t he i mpr essi on t hat l yi ng t o t he [ c] our t

was necessar y t o get hi s pl ea accept ed. " I d. at 486. The def endant

pr oceeded wi t h hi s pl ea but l at er sought t o r et r act i t . The


24/39

- 24 -

di st r i ct cour t al l owed hi m t o do so, concl udi ng t hat "a f ai r and

j ust r eason" exi st ed f or wi t hdrawi ng t he pl ea. I d.

The cour t bel ow di st i ngui shed DeSi mone on a number of

grounds. 8 See Car amadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 185. We agr ee t hat

t he t wo cases ar e not f ai r congener s. Unl i ke i n DeSi mone,

Car amadr e di d not t ake i ssue wi t h t he pr osecut i on' s ver si on of t he

f act s when he changed hi s pl ea; and more i mpor t ant l y, Caramadr e' s

f or mer l awyer s t est i f i ed t hat t hey had i nst r uct ed hi m not t o l i e.

The di st r i ct cour t not onl y f ound t hi s t est i mony cr edi bl e but al so

accept ed t he l awyer s' t est i mony t hat t hey woul d not have al l owed

Car amadr e t o pl ead gui l t y i f t hey t hought t hat doi ng so woul d

r equi r e hi m t o pr evar i cat e. See Car amadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at

185.

C. Bias.

Car amadr e i nsi st s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ref usal t o

per mi t hi m t o wi t hdr aw hi s gui l t y pl ea was i nf ect ed by j udi ci al

bi as. He concent r at es hi s f i r e pr i nci pal l y on t he "t ext and t enor "

8 I ndeed, t he cour t went a st ep f ur t her : i t suggest ed t hatCaramadr e had f ami l i ar i zed hi msel f wi t h t he DeSi mone case and haddel i ber at el y pr of essed hi s i nnocence t o hi s at t or neys as a way ofnegat i ng hi s gui l t y pl ea and l at er obt ai ni ng a new t r i al , sever edf r om hi s codef endant . See Caramadr e, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 184- 85.We take no vi ew of t hi s suggest i on: r egar dl ess of whet her or notCar amadr e sought t o mi mi c DeSi mone, t her e was no abuse ofdi scret i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat what everprof essi ons of i nnocence Car amadr e may f r omt i me to t i me have madedi d not add up t o a f ai r and j ust r eason f or wi t hdr awi ng hi s pl ea.


25/39

- 25 -

of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r escri pt . We begi n our di scussi on wi t h

t he gover nment ' s cont ent i on t hat Car amadr e' s bi as cl ai m has been

wai ved and t hen pr oceed t o addr ess t he component s of t hat cl ai m.

1. Waiver and Standard of Review. Al most seven mont hs

el apsed bet ween t he deni al of Caramadr e' s pl eawi t hdr awal mot i on

and hi s sent enci ng. Dur i ng t hi s per i od, he never sought t o have

t he di st r i ct cour t r ecuse i t sel f . The gover nment ' s ar gument t hat

t hi s i nact i on const i t ut ed a wai ver of t he bi as cl ai m has some

suppor t i n t he case l aw. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Di Pi na, 230

F. 3d 477, 486 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( f i ndi ng wai ver when def endant had

nei t her moved f or r ecusal nor ot her wi se r ai sed cl ai m of j udi ci al

bi as i n di st r i ct cour t ) . But ot her cases i ndi cat e t hat pl ai n er r or

r evi ew may be appr opr i ate when a part y r ai ses a bi as- based recusal

ar gument f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es

v. Reynol ds, 646 F. 3d 63, 74 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Cr uz- Mer cado, 360 F. 3d 30, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

We ar e sensi t i ve t o a j udge' s unf l aggi ng dut y t o be

i mpar t i al . Gi ven t he i mpor t ance of i mpar t i al i t y, we t hi nk t hat

t he bet t er r ul e i s that a cl ai m of j udi ci al bi as, r ai sed f or t he

f i r st t i me on appeal , shoul d be r evi ewed f or pl ai n er r or .

Consequent l y, we rej ect t he government ' s wai ver argument and hol d

i nst ead t hat Car amadr e' s bi as- based r ecusal cl ai m engender s pl ai n

er r or r evi ew.


26/39

- 26 -

Pl ai n er r or r evi ew r equi r es a f our - par t showi ng: " ( 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 ect ed t he def endant ' 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) .

2. Merits. J udges have a dut y t o si t unl ess some

compel l i ng r eason f or r ecusal exi st s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Snyder ,

235 F. 3d 42, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . Not ever y hi nt of bi as i s

di squal i f yi ng: af t er al l , a j udge i s expect ed t o make j udgment s,

a pr ocess whi ch ent ai l s f or mi ng opi ni ons about t he credi bi l i t y of

wi t nesses and t he i nt r i nsi c mer i t ( or l ack of mer i t ) of cases t hat

he hears. See Li t eky v. Uni t ed St at es, 510 U. S. 540, 550- 51

( 1994) . I n or der f or us t o f i nd di squal i f yi ng bi as and over r ul e

a j udge' s deci si on ( expl i ci t or i mpl i ci t ) t hat no sound basi s f or

hi s r ecusal exi st s, an appel l ant must show t hat t he j udge' s act i ons

wer e "so ext r eme as t o di spl ay [ a] cl ear i nabi l i t y t o r ender f ai r

j udgment . " I d. at 551.

To suppor t hi s bi as- based r ecusal cl ai m, Car amadre

r el i es on a st r i ng of st r ongl y wor ded st at ement s excer pt ed f r om

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r escri pt denyi ng hi s mot i on t o wi t hdr aw.

Speci f i cal l y, he poi nt s t o t he f ol l owi ng:

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s char acter i zat i on of hi s pl eawi t hdr awal

mot i on as " ent i r el y mer i t l ess, bor der i ng on f r i vol ous";


27/39

- 27 -

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat none of t he evi dence

pr esent ed by Car amadr e i ncl udi ng hi s medi cal af f i davi t s

"even remot el y suppor t [ ed] " hi s cl ai m of i ncompet ence;

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssi ve t r eat ment of Car amadr e' s

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m;

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nt i mat i on t hat Car amadr e was suggest i ng

t hat hi s f or mer at t or neys del i ber at el y under mi ned hi s def ense

i n or der t o pr essur e hi m i nt o pl eadi ng gui l t y;

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s st at ement t hat Car amadr e' s pl ea-

wi t hdr awal mot i on was "an i ncr edi bl y cyni cal and di st ur bi ng

ef f or t t o mani pul at e t he cour t and t he cr i mi nal j ust i ce

syst em"; and

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s suggest i on t hat t he act i ons of

Car amadr e' s new counsel mi ght subj ect hi m t o di sci pl i nar y

r evi ew.

These st at ements, t aken col l ect i vel y, show t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t di d not t hi nk much of Car amadr e' s pl eawi t hdr awal

mot i on. Admi t t edl y, t he cour t couched i t s f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons

i n bl unt l anguage. But t r i al j udges ar e not r equi r ed ei t her t o

mi nce words or t o sugar- coat t hei r vi ews. See Logue v. Dore, 103F. 3d 1040, 1045 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) . Bl unt l anguage, wi t hout mor e,

does not t r ansl at e i nt o a showi ng of j udi ci al bi as. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Rodr guez- Ri ver a, 473 F. 3d 21, 27- 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .


28/39

- 28 -

The Supreme Cour t has t aught t hat " r emar ks dur i ng t he

cour se of t r i al t hat ar e cri t i cal or di sappr ovi ng of , or even

host i l e t o, counsel , t he par t i es, or t hei r cases" ar e usual l y

i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ove bi as. Li t eky, 510 U. S. at 555. The same i s

t r ue of a cour t ' s "expr essi ons of i mpat i ence, di ssat i sf act i on,

annoyance, and even anger . " I d. at 555- 56. The case at hand f al l s

wi t hi n t hese gener al r ul es, not wi t hi n t he l ong- odds except i ons t o

t hem. Though t he cour t bel ow empl oyed f or cef ul r het or i c, i t s

comment s, wi t hout except i on, are suppor t ed by a r easonabl e vi ew of

t he r ecor d evi dence. The cour t di d not cr oss the Li t eky l i ne.

Thi s concl usi on i s borne out by cont r ast i ng t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s r het or i c wi t h words and conduct t hat have been hel d

i nsuf f i ci ent t o r equi r e r ecusal . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Of r ay- Campos, 534 F. 3d 1, 32- 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( f i ndi ng no

j udi ci al bi as t hough j udge, inter alia, i nt er r upt ed counsel dur i ng

openi ng and cl osi ng st at ement s, t ol d counsel t o "shut up" dur i ng

a si debar conf erence, and made demeani ng r emarks about counsel ' s

per f or mance) ; Rodr guez- Ri ver a, 473 F. 3d at 26- 29 ( f i ndi ng no

j udi ci al bi as t hough j udge, inter alia, r epr i manded counsel i n

open cour t , comment ed unf avorabl y on counsel ' s obj ect i ons, and

"made a ser i es of unpr edi ct abl e and adver se rul i ngs" agai nst t he

def endant ) ; Di Pi na, 230 F. 3d at 486 ( f i ndi ng no j udi ci al bi as

t hough j udge charact er i zed def endant ' s l egal argument s as


29/39

- 29 -

"wor t hl ess" and r emar ked on hi s "cr i mi nal conduct " ) . By

compar i son, t he r het or i c chal l enged her e easi l y passes must er .

We summar i ze succi nct l y. Whi l e Caramadr e has di r ect ed

a bar r age of epi t het s at t he di st r i ct cour t , he has f al l en f ar

shor t of showi ng t hat t he cour t was bi ased agai nst hi m. Put

anot her way, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s unf l at t er i ng assessment of

Car amadr e' s l i t i gat i on st r at egy and subst ant i ve cl ai ms does not

si nk t o t he l evel of di squal i f yi ng bi as. On t hi s r ecor d, we si mpl y

cannot f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s wor ds di spl ayed an i nabi l i t y

t o r ender a f ai r j udgment . Cf . Chr i st i an Recor der Pr over bs ( Mar .

22, 1862) ( "St i cks and st ones wi l l br eak my bones, but wor ds wi l l

never har mme. " ) . We concl ude, t her ef or e, t hat t her e was no er r or ,

pl ai n or ot her wi se, i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o r ecuse

i t sel f sua spont e.

3. Rule 10(c). Thi s br i ngs t o t he f or e Car amadr e' s

appeal of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di sposi t i on of hi s Rul e 10( c)

mot i on. Caramadr e assever ates t hat st atement s made by the di st r i ct

cour t dur i ng an unr ecor ded and unt r anscr i bed chambers conf erence

hel d on J anuar y 15, 2013, show t hat t he cour t pr e- j udged hi s pl ea-

wi t hdr awal mot i on and exhi bi t ed bi as agai nst hi m.

We set t he st age. Caramadr e' s ver si on of what t r anspi r ed

at t he chamber s conf er ence i s cont ai ned i n an af f i davi t of

successor counsel , appended t o hi s Rul e 10( c) mot i on. The di st r i ct


30/39

- 30 -

cour t di scar ded t hi s account and subst i t ut ed i t s own summary of

what was sai d and done.

Car amadr e chal l enges t he cour t ' s subst i t ut ed ver si on.

Rel yi ng on hi s l awyer ' s af f i davi t , he at t r i but es cer t ai n

st at ement s to t he cour t . A r epr esent at i ve sampl i ng f ol l ows:

t hat t he f i r st week of t r i al had been a "compl et e, unmi t i gat ed

di sast er " f or Car amadr e;

t hat t he government had made a "compel l i ng, over whel mi ng

pr esent at i on of evi dence of gui l t " dur i ng t he f our days of

t r i al ;

t hat had t he t r i al cont i nued, i t woul d have been f r om

Car amadr e' s poi nt of vi ew, "a t r ai n wr eck f or t he next t hr ee

months" ; and

t hat Caramadr e had changed hi s pl ea because " he was get t i ng

ki l l ed at t r i al . "

Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 10( c) pr ovi des:

I f t he t r anscr i pt of a hear i ng or t r i al i sunavai l abl e, t he appel l ant may pr epare a st atement oft he evi dence or pr oceedi ngs f r om t he best avai l abl emeans, i ncl udi ng t he appel l ant ' s r ecol l ect i on. Thest at ement must be served on t he appel l ee, who may ser veobj ect i ons or pr oposed amendment s wi t hi n 14 days af t erbei ng served. The st atement and any obj ect i ons orproposed amendments must t hen be submi t t ed t o t hedi st r i ct cour t f or set t l ement and appr oval . As set t l edand appr oved, t he st at ement must be i ncl uded by t hedi st r i ct cl er k i n t he r ecor d on appeal .

As a t hr eshol d mat t er , t he gover nment suggest s t hat ,

because Car amadr e appeal ed t he di st r i ct cour t ' s Rul e 10( c) r ul i ng


31/39

- 31 -

separ at el y, we l ack j ur i sdi ct i on over t hat appeal . We do not

agr ee. The di st r i ct cour t ' s Rul e 10( c) or der was a f i nal or der ,

f i l ed af t er Car amadr e' s convi ct i on and sent ence had al r eady been

appeal ed. I t was, t her ef or e, appeal abl e under 28 U. S. C. 1291.

Thi s makes per f ect sense: t he cor e pur pose of Rul e 10( c) woul d be

f r ust r at ed i f a di st r i ct cour t ' s ver si on of event s was i nocul at ed

agai nst j udi ci al r evi ew. See Ber ger co, U. S. A. v. Shi ppi ng Cor p.

of I ndi a, Lt d. , 896 F. 2d 1210, 1214- 15 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) ; cf . Uni t ed

St at es v. Mor i , 444 F. 2d 240, 246 ( 5t h Ci r . 1971) ( expl ai ni ng t hat

a di st r i ct cour t may consi der a mot i on t o cor r ect t he r ecor d under

Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 10( e) "even af t er appeal has

been t aken") .

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s di sposi t i on of a Rul e 10( c)

mot i on f or abuse of di scret i on. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Pagn- Fer r er ,

736 F. 3d 573, 582 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , cer t . deni ed, sub nom. Vi dal -

Mal donado v. Uni t ed St ates, 134 S. Ct . 2839 ( 2014) ( r evi ewi ng

deni al of Rul e 10( e) mot i on f or abuse of di scr et i on) . The movant

( her e, Car amadr e) must est abl i sh t hat " t he t r i al cour t ' s account

i s pat ent l y unr easonabl e or del i ber at el y f al se, " Rogan v. Meni no,

175 F. 3d 75, 80 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) , and t hat t hi s account pr ej udi ced

t he pr esent at i on of hi s cl ai ms on appeal , see I n r e Cambr i dge

Li t er ar y Pr ops. , Lt d. , 271 F. 3d 348, 349 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) .

Car amadr e upbr ai ds t he di st r i ct cour t f or r el yi ng on i t s

own r ecol l ect i on of t he chamber s conf er ence r ather t han accept i ng


32/39

- 32 -

t he ver si on of event s pr of f er ed by Car amadr e' s counsel . Rel at edl y,

he submi t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr ovi dent l y expanded t he

r ecord by addi ng expl anat i ons f or why i t made cer t ai n st atement s.

Car amadr e' s i nsi st ence t hat t he di st r i ct cour t had no

r i ght t o set f or t h i t s own ver si on of event s r eads Rul e 10( c) i n

t oo gr udgi ng a manner . I n t er ms, t he r ul e pr ovi des t hat once an

appel l ant has " pr epar e[ d] a st at ement of t he evi dence or

pr oceedi ngs f r omt he best avai l abl e means, " t he st atement must "be

submi t t ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or set t l ement and appr oval . " Fed.

R. App. P. 10( c) . The phr ase "set t l ement and appr oval " i s gener ous

i n i t s scope, and not hi ng pr ohi bi t s a cour t f r om dr awi ng on i t s

own memory of event s i n the "set t l ement and appr oval " pr ocess.

I ndeed, i t woul d be f ol l y f or a j udge t o cl ose hi s eyes t o case-

r el at ed mat t er s wi t hi n hi s per sonal knowl edge. We hol d, t her ef or e,

t hat a di st r i ct cour t may r el y on i t s own r ecol l ect i on of r el evant

event s i n set t l i ng and appr ovi ng a pr oposed Rul e 10( c) st at ement .

See Uni t ed St ates v. Kenney, 911 F. 2d 315, 317- 18 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) ;

see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 202 F. 3d 691, 696- 97, 697 n. 8

( 4t h Ci r . 2000) ( not i ng appr ovi ngl y t hat i n wei ghi ng par t i es'

compet i ng ver si ons of what occur r ed at a hear i ng, di st r i ct cour t

necessar i l y r el i ed on i t s own r ecol l ecti on) .

Car amadr e al so ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was

obl i ged t o adopt hi s ver si on of t he f act s because hi s counsel ' s

not es were "cont empor aneousl y r ecorded" and t he gover nment never


33/39

- 33 -

chal l enged t hei r accur acy. But a r ul e t o t hi s ef f ect woul d r educe

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ol e t o t hat of a r ubber st amp, and we do not

t hi nk t hat t he l aw i mposes so count er i nt ui t i ve a r equi r ement . A

case i n poi nt i s Uni t ed St ates v. Keskey, 863 F. 2d 474, 478 ( 7t h

Ci r . 1988) , i n whi ch t he Sevent h Ci r cui t r ej ect ed a si mi l ar

ar gument . Si mpl y put , t he di st r i ct cour t was not obl i ged t o

el evat e t he l awyer ' s not es over i t s own r ecol l ect i on.

Car amadr e' s cont ent i on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t had no

aut hor i t y t o el abor at e on what was sai d i s l i kewi se unavai l i ng.

Common sense suggest s t hat , i n t he Rul e 10( c) set t l ement and

appr oval pr ocess, a di st r i ct cour t must have t he power t o

cont ext ual i ze what was sai d. And t hough t he di st r i ct cour t ' s Rul e

10( c) st atement goes beyond mer e cont ext ual i zat i on, t hat over r each

makes no di f f er ence her e: even wer e we t o accept l ock, st ock, and

bar r el t he ver si on of event s l i mned i n Car amadr e' s Rul e 10( c)

st at ement , Car amadr e' s cl ai m of j udi ci al bi as woul d f ai l . The

car ef ul l y cul l ed st at ement s r ef l ect not hi ng mor e t han t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci dedl y negat i ve eval uat i on of Car amadr e' s at t empt t o

wi t hdr aw hi s pl ea. Those st at ement s ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o

demonst r at e t hat t he di st r i ct cour t har bor ed a di squal i f yi ng bi as

agai nst Car amadr e. See supr a Par t I I ( C) ( 2) .

III. SENTENCING

Caramadr e at t empt s t o chal l enge hi s sent ence on t wo

gr ounds. He assert s bot h t hat t he di st r i ct cour t engaged i n


34/39

- 34 -

vi ndi ct i ve sent enci ng and t hat i t s or der f or $46, 000, 000 i n

r est i t ut i on i s i nsuppor t abl e. The gover nment submi t s t hat t hese

cl ai ms are bar r ed by t he wai ver - of - appeal pr ovi si on cont ai ned i n

Car amadr e' s pl ea agr eement , 9 and we agr ee. We expl ai n br i ef l y.

Our case l aw makes pel l uci d t hat " [ a] def endant who

wai ves hi s r i ght t o appeal and t her eaf t er at t empt s t o avoi d t he

ef f ect of t he wai ver must conf r ont t he wai ver head- on. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mi l i ano, 480 F. 3d 605, 608 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Such wai ver s

ar e "pr esumpt i vel y val i d, " subj ect t o t hr ee "st r i ngent cri t er i a. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Teet er , 257 F. 3d 14, 23, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) .

Fi r st , t he pl ea agr eement must cl ear l y "el uci dat [ e] t he wai ver and

del i neat [ e] i t s scope. " I d. at 24. Second, t he cour t ' s i nqui r i es

at t he change- of - pl ea col l oquy must "suf f i ce[ ] t o ensur e t hat t he

def endant f r eel y and i nt el l i gent l y agr eed t o wai ve [ hi s] r i ght t o

appeal . " I d. at 24. Thi r d, pr et er mi t t i ng t he r i ght to appeal

must not r esul t i n a "mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. " I d. at 25.

9 There i s a st r ong ar gument t hat t he appeal wai ver i nCaramadr e' s pl ea agr eement l i kewi se bars appel l ate r evi ew of t hedi st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t he pl ea wi t hdr awal mot i on. See Uni t edSt at es v. Al cal a, 678 F. 3d 574, 578 ( 7t h Ci r . 2012) ( hol di ng as amat t er of f i r st i mpr essi on t hat di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of mot i ont o wi t hdr aw a gui l t y pl ea f el l wi t hi n scope of appel l at e wai ver ) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Toth, 668 F. 3d 374, 378- 79 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012)( appl yi ng appeal wai ver t o def endant ' s mot i on t o wi t hdr aw andcol l ect i ng cases f r om ot her ci r cui t s) . We have not , however ,expl ored t hat t err ai n here because t he government never made thi sargument and t hus has wai ved any appl i cat i on of t he appeal wai vert o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Car amadr e' s pl ea wi t hdr awalmot i on.


35/39

- 35 -

Caramadr e' s pl ea agr eement st ated i n per t i nent part

t hat : "Def endant her eby wai ves [ hi s] r i ght t o appeal t he

convi ct i ons and sent ences i mposed by t he Cour t , i f t he sent ences

i mposed by t he Cour t ar e at or bel ow t he government ' s maxi mum

r ecommended sent ence. " Thi s l anguage i s di r ect and t o t he poi nt ;

i t cl ear l y el uci dat es the wai ver . What i s mor e, t he di st r i ct cour t

t ook pai ns at t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng t o ensure t hat Caramadr e

underst ood t he ef f ect of t he wai ver . Nor does Caramadr e argue

t hat hi s t erm of i mmurement exceeded t he boundar i es adumbrat ed i n

t he pl ea agr eement ( whi ch l i mi t ed any pr i son sent ence t o a maxi mum

of t en year s) . Wi t hal , Car amadr e t r i es t o ski r t t he wai ver i n

t hr ee di f f er ent ways. None of hi s ar gument s i s convi nci ng.

Car amadr e' s f i r st sor t i e i s st i l l bor n. He ar gues t hat

t he pl ea agr eement as a whol e i s i nval i d because he shoul d have

been al l owed t o wi t hdr aw hi s pl ea. We al r eady have expl ai ned why

t he pr emi se of t hi s argument i s wr ong, see supr a Par t I I , so we

say no more about i t .

Car amadr e' s most l oudl y br ui t ed cl ai m i mpl i cat es t he

scope of t he appeal wai ver . He posi t s t hat t he pl ea agr eement di d

not f or ecl ose hi m f r om appeal i ng t he r est i t ut i on or der . I n

suppor t , he not es t he l ack of any expl i ci t r ef er ence t o rest i t ut i on

i n t he wai ver - of - appeal pr ovi si on; and he poi nt s t o l anguage

el sewher e i n the pl ea agr eement st at i ng that t he amount of

r est i t ut i on woul d be det er mi ned i n t he f ut ur e. Thus, Car amadr e


36/39

- 36 -

says, t he r est i t ut i on or der does not f al l wi t hi n t he scope of t he

wai ver - of - appeal pr ovi si on.

Thi s cl ai m, t hough f or cef ul l y present ed, r uns headl ong

i nt o our deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Okoye, 731 F. 3d 46 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) . Ther e, t he pl ea agr eement i ncl uded a wai ver - of - appeal

pr ovi si on si mi l ar t o Car amadr e' s: nei t her pr ovi si on made any

expl i ci t ment i on of r est i t ut i on. See i d. at 48. We nonet hel ess

concl uded t hat t he wai ver pr ovi si on appl i ed t o a r est i t ut i on or der

i mposed as par t of t he def endant ' s sent ence. See i d. at 49- 50.

We expl ai ned t hat t he pl ea agreement as a whol e "unambi guousl y

est abl i shed t hat [ t he def endant ' s] sent ence woul d i ncl ude

' r est i t ut i on i n t he amount of l oss' " and, t hus, t he appeal wai ver

ext ended t o t he r est i t ut i on awar d. I d. at 49.

Okoye and t hi s case are on al l f our s. Car amadr e r esi st s

t hi s obvi ous congr uence, t hough, t r yi ng t o di st i ngui sh Okoye on

t he gr ound that t he pl ea agr eement t her e cont empl ated a speci f i c

amount of r est i t ut i on wher eas t he pl ea agr eement her e st ated t hat

t he amount of r est i t ut i on was yet t o be det er mi ned. Thi s i s a

di st i nct i on wi t hout a di f f er ence. That Car amadr e' s pl ea agr eement

di d not speci f y a speci f i c r est i t ut i onar y amount has no bear i ng at

al l on whet her r est i t ut i on shoul d pr oper l y be consi der ed par t of

Caramadr e' s " sent ence. "

At t he expense of car t i ng coal t o Newcast l e, we add t hat

t he wai ver - of - appeal pr ovi si on appl i es even mor e cl ear l y her e t han


37/39

- 37 -

i n Okoye. Ther e, t he wai ver provi si on st at ed t hat t he def endant

"[ woul d] not f i l e a di r ect appeal nor col l at er al l y chal l enge any

pr i son sent ence of 27 mont hs or l ess. " I d. at 48 ( emphasi s i n

or i gi nal ) . The use of t he modi f yi ng adj ect i ve "pr i son" gave r i se

t o a col orabl e ar gument t hat t he por t i on of t he sent ence t o whi ch

t he wai ver appl i ed di d not i ncl ude r est i t ut i on. The def endant

made t hi s ar gument , and t he Okoye cour t debunked i t . See i d. at

49- 50. Thi s ar gument i s not avai l abl e t o Caramadr e; t he wai ver -

of - appeal pr ovi si on cont ai ns no compar abl e modi f i er .

That r est i t ut i on i s a par t of Car amadre' s sentence

scar cel y can be doubt ed. See 18 U. S. C. 3663A( a) ( 1) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Sal as- Fer nndez, 620 F. 3d 45, 47 & n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

Here, moreover , Caramadr e' s pl ea agr eement af f i r ms t hat t he

government was " f r ee t o recommend any combi nat i on of supervi sed

r el ease, f i nes, and r est i t ut i on whi ch i t deems appr opr i at e. " The

cl ear i mpl i cat i on of t hi s st at ement i s t hat r est i t ut i on woul d be

part of Caramadr e' s sent ence. 10

I n a l ast - di t ch ef f or t t o el ude t he gr asp of t he appeal

wai ver , Car amadr e i nvokes t he mi scar r i age of j ust i ce except i on.

10 We have decl i ned t o hol d t hat an appeal wai ver t hat omi t sany ment i on of r est i t ut i on necessar i l y appl i es t o r est i t ut i onorder s. See Uni t ed St ates v. Snchez- Mal donado, 737 F. 3d 826,827- 28, 828 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . But a cour t may concl ude, basedon a hol i st i c vi ew of such a pl ea agr eement and t he at t endantci r cumst ances, t hat a par t i cul ar wai ver - of - appeal pr ovi si on wasmeant t o ext end t o r est i t ut i on or der s. Thi s i s such a case.


38/39

- 38 -

See Teet er , 257 F. 3d at 25- 26. Thi s assi gnment of er r or need not

det ai n us.

The mi scar r i age of j ust i ce except i on i s t o be appl i ed

"spar i ngl y and wi t hout undue gener osi t y. " I d. at 26. I t i s not

i nt ended t o redr ess " mer e ' gar den- var i et y' cl ai ms of er r or . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Lpez, 736 F. 3d 633, 635 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

( quot i ng Teet er , 257 F. 3d at 26) . Car amadr e' s cl ai m of vi ndi ct i ve

sent enci ng i s r emi ni scent of t he bi as cl ai ms t hat we al r eady have

r ej ect ed, see supr a Par t I I ( C) , and he has made no showi ng t hat

t hi s cl ai m comes wi t hi n t he nar r ow conf i nes of t he mi scar r i age of

j ust i ce except i on.

I n t he f i r st pl ace, t he pl ea agr eement capped

Car amadr e' s exposur e wi t h r espect t o i ncar cer at i on at t en year s.

Thi s was consi derabl y bel ow t he t op of hi s gui del i ne sentenci ng

r ange. Even so, t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced hi m t o onl y a si x-

year pr i son t er m. Sur el y, t hat was not a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce.

Hi s pl ai nt t hat t he r est i t ut i on amount i s si mi l ar l y

excessi ve i s uni mpr essi ve. That amount was cal cul at ed by t he

magi st r at e j udge af t er a t hr ee- day evi dent i ar y hear i ng and

conf i r med by t he di st r i ct cour t . To ci nch t he mat t er , t he

$46, 000, 000 t ot al , t hough l ar ge, has ampl e f oot i ng i n t he r ecor d.

To be sur e, Car amadre has l ef t no doubt but t hat he

consi der s hi s sent ence "unj ust . " But a def endant ' s

di ssat i sf act i on wi t h hi s sent ence, no mat t er how pr of ound, cannot


39/39

const i t ut e a basi s f or ci r cumvent i ng a wai ver - of - appeal pr ovi si on

t o whi ch he agr eed. See Uni t ed St ates v. Edel en, 539 F. 3d 83, 86-

87 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . To al l ow Car amadr e t o f r ust r at e hi s appeal

wai ver i n the ci r cumst ances of t hi s case woul d cheat t he gover nment

of one of t he sal i ent benef i t s of t he bar gai n t hat i t st r uck wi t h

Car amadr e.

IV. CONCLUSION

To r ecapi t ul at e, Car amadre abl y r epresent ed by

exper i enced counsel el ect ed t o pl ead gui l t y t o ser i ous char ges.

When he t her eaf t er had a change of heart and sought t o ret r act hi s

gui l t y pl ea, t he di st r i ct cour t gave hi m ever y oppor t uni t y t o

demonst r at e a f ai r and j ust r eason f or doi ng so. The di st r i ct

cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat Car amadr e f ai l ed i n t hi s ef f or t was

nei t her i nf ect ed by l egal er r or nor const i t ut ed an abuse of

di scr et i on. The sent enci ng det er mi nat i ons t hat f ol l owed ar e

i nsul at ed f r om r evi ew because Car amadr e, appr opr i at el y war ned,

wai ved hi s r i ght t o appeal hi s sent ence as par t of t he pl ea

agr eement t hat he negot i at ed and si gned.

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

Caramadr e' s appeal s ar e f ut i l e. He has r eaped what he has sown.

Affirmed.

United States v. Caramadre, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Caramadre, 1st Cir. (2015)