USA V. URBANO TORRES-GILES, No. 22-50112 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed his sentence of twenty-seven months’ imprisonment followed by three years’ supervised release for attempted reentry following removal. Defendant had been deported from the United States six times, most recently about a month before his arrest. The same district court judge who sentenced Defendant in this case had presided over his prior sentencing hearing for illegal reentry. On appeal, Defendant raised two challenges to the court’s sentence.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence. The panel held that so long as Defendant is apprised of the consequences of entering into a Type B plea agreement and accedes to them voluntarily, he has no right to withdraw from the agreement on the ground that the court does not accept the sentencing recommendation or request. Accordingly, the district court’s use of the word “reject” in the context of a Type B plea agreement can have no legal effect. The panel wrote that the record establishes that Defendant was aware of the consequences of entering into a Type B plea agreement, and concluded that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion under the circumstances.
Defendant argued that the district court committed procedural error when it used Defendant’s alleged promise at his prior sentencing hearing not to return to the United States as a sentencing factor. Reviewing for plain error, the panel held that the district court’s factual finding that Defendant had assured the court at the prior sentencing hearing that he would not return to the United States is supported by the record.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel affirmed a sentence in a case in which Urbano Torres-Giles pleaded guilty to attempted reentry following removal and entered a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B) plea agreement, known as a “Type B” agreement.
Torres-Giles argued that the district court abused its discretion by “rejecting” his Type B plea agreement in its entirety after imposing sentence for the reentry offense. The panel explained that unlike plea agreements under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(C), no corresponding opportunity-to-withdraw language governs Type B plea agreements; the defendant has no right to withdraw a Type B plea if the court does not follow the government’s recommendation or the defendant’s request, and a Type B agreement is not binding upon the court. The panel held that so long as the defendant is apprised of the consequences of entering into a Type B plea agreement and accedes to them voluntarily, he has no right to withdraw from the agreement on the ground that the court does not accept the sentencing recommendation or request. Accordingly, the district court’s use of the word “reject” in the context of a Type B plea agreement can have no legal effect. The panel wrote that the record establishes that Torres-Giles was aware of the consequences of entering into a Type B plea agreement, and concluded that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion under the circumstances.
The same district court judge who sentenced Torres- Giles in this case had presided over his prior sentencing hearing for illegal reentry. Torres-Giles argued that the district court committed procedural error when it used Torres-Giles’s alleged promise at his prior sentencing hearing not to return to the United States as a sentencing factor for the attempted reentry offense without any proof such a promise had been made. Reviewing for plain error, the panel held that the district court’s factual finding that Torres-Giles had assured the court at the prior sentencing hearing that he would not return to the United States is supported by the record. In addition, the record establishes that the broken promise played virtually no role in the district court’s sentence for the attempted reentry offense. And even if the district court procedurally erred by relying on the promise, Torres-Giles did not demonstrate that his substantial rights were affected.
Judge Mendoza concurred in part and dissented in part. He dissented from the part of the majority opinion concerning the district court’s finding of a broken promise.
Applying United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015), which he reads as suggesting correctly that a district court’s speculation about statements potentially made during a prior hearing is a “clearly erroneous fact” that cannot be used as a sentencing factor, and reviewing for plain error, he would reverse.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.