Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

USA v. Salazar (2nd Cir 9 17-2012) unpublished

362 views

Published on

Published in: Lifestyle
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

USA v. Salazar (2nd Cir 9 17-2012) unpublished

  1. 1. 11-2220 United States v. Salazar UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 17th day of September, two thousand twelve. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,10 Circuit Judges.1112 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,14 Appellee,1516 -v.- 11-22201718 DOMINGO SALAZAR,19 Defendant-Appellant,2021 NORMA MENDEZ,22 Defendant.23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X2425 FOR APPELLANT: Lawrence Gerzog, New York, N.Y. 1
  2. 2. 1 2 FOR APPELLEE: Michael H. Warren (Susan 3 Corkery, on the brief), 4 Assistant United States 5 Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, 6 United States Attorney for the 7 Eastern District of New York, 8 Brooklyn, N.Y. 910 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District11 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J.).1213 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED14 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be15 AFFIRMED.1617 Domingo Salazar appeals from a judgment of conviction,18 following a guilty plea to one count of sex trafficking, one19 count of illegal reentry following deportation, and five20 other counts also related to his conspiracy with his wife to21 smuggle a minor into the United States for the purpose of22 forcing her to engage in prostitution.2324 The government offered Salazar an agreement pursuant to25 which he could have pleaded guilty to sex trafficking and26 illegal reentry. Although Salazar himself would have gained27 little by accepting, the government was also offering that28 if Salazar pleaded guilty by July 1, 2010, his wife could29 plead guilty to sex trafficking conspiracy and avoid the30 fifteen-year mandatory minimum attached to the substantive31 sex trafficking charge. Considerable discussion over the32 factual bases of some of the allegations, and over Salazar’s33 claim that he had not had a chance to “study” the plea34 agreement, followed. During all of this time, however,35 Salazar never wavered from his desire to plead guilty. In36 due course, he did plead guilty, but without the benefit of37 a formal agreement.3839 Before us, Salazar asks that his plea be declared40 involuntary for several reasons. He cites his limited41 English-language ability and lack of education. However,42 Salazar had the benefit of an interpreter; he told the court43 that he understood the proceedings; and his lawyer expressed44 “no reason to doubt [Salazar’s] competence.” Salazar also45 emphasizes that he was under “enormous pressure” because the46 government’s offer to his wife was conditioned on his guilty47 plea. We have held, however, that this kind of pressure does 2
  3. 3. 1 not necessarily render a guilty plea invalid. “The inclusion 2 of a third-party benefit in a plea bargain is simply one 3 factor for a district court to weigh in making the overall 4 determination whether the plea is voluntarily entered.” 5 United States v. Marquez, 909 F.2d 738, 742 (2d Cir. 1990); 6 see also id. (“Since a defendant’s plea is not rendered 7 involuntary because he enters it to save himself many years 8 in prison, it is difficult to see why the law should not 9 permit the defendant to negotiate a plea that confers a10 similar benefit on others.”). And finally, Salazar argues11 that the court participated in plea discussions in violation12 of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1).1314 Because Salazar failed to raise these claims before the15 district court, he must show plain error. United States v.16 Torrellas, 455 F.3d 96, 103 (2d Cir. 2006). To satisfy that17 standard, Salazar must demonstrate “that (1) there was18 error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error19 prejudicially affected his substantial rights.” Id.20 (internal quotation marks omitted). Salazar “has the further21 burden to persuade the court that the error seriously22 affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of23 judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks24 omitted).252627 We have examined the record with care and conclude that28 Salazar cannot meet these stringent requirements. Finding no29 merit in Salazar’s remaining arguments, as well, we hereby30 AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.31323334 FOR THE COURT:35 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK3637 3

×