United States v. Kenney, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Kenney, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/32

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2451

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

ROBERT C. KENNEY,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Ri char d G. St ear ns, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Howar d, Ci r cui t J udges.

W. Dani el Deane, wi t h whomNi xon Peabody LLP was on br i ef , f orappel 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 and Mi chael J .Cr owl ey, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

J une 25, 2014


2/32

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Af t er pl eadi ng gui l t y t o dr ug

di st r i but i on, r obber y, and f i r ear mchar ges, Rober t Kenney now seeks

wi t hdr awal of hi s gui l t y pl ea. He ar gues that t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed i n f ai l i ng t o assess hi s compet ency, t hat i t i nadequat el y

assessed whet her hi s pl ea was "knowi ng" and "vol unt ar y" wi t hi n the

meani ng of Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11, and t hat hi s t r i al l awyer f ai l ed t o

pr ovi de hi mwi t h ef f ect i ve assi st ance. Kenney al so chal l enges t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s i mposi t i on of a t en- year mandat or y mi ni mum

sent ence, cont endi ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t gave hi m i nadequat e

not i ce of t he evi dence on whi ch i t r el i ed and t hat i t i ncor r ect l y

eval uat ed hi s cl ai mof sent enci ng f act or mani pul at i on. Fi ndi ng no

er r or , we af f i r m.

I.

The mor ni ng of Februar y 11, 2011 promi sed t o be a busy

one f or Kenney and hi s t wo co- conspi r at or s, Chr i st opher Li t t l ej ohn

and Ramone Ar akel ow. Wel l bef or e dawn, t he t r i o pi l ed i nt o

Kenney' s t r uck and dr ove t o a par ki ng l ot i n Saugus, Massachuset t s,

where a f our t h conspi r ator awai t ed t hem. Posi ng as l aw enf orcement

of f i cer s, t he f our woul d t hen br eak i nt o t he apar t ment of t wo

Br azi l i an dr ug deal er s, r est r ai n t he occupant s, and abscond wi t h

f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne and $200, 000 i n cash. I n pr epar at i on f or

t he robbery, Kenney had obt ai ned a Bost on Pol i ce Depar t ment pat ch

and pol i ce l i ght , al ong wi t h kni ves, duct t ape, and zi p t i es t o

r est r ai n t he apar t ment ' s deni zens. Kenney had al so di scussed t he

-2-


3/32

l ayout of t he apar t ment wi t h Li t t l ej ohn and t he f our t h conspi r at or ,

and ar r anged t o br eak i n at a t i me when onl y one of t he dr ug

deal er s was home and when an associ at e woul d be pr esent t o open t he

door .

Unf or t unat el y f or t he woul d- be r obber s, t here was no

apart ment , no cocai ne, and no money. Worse st i l l , t here was not

even a f our t h conspi r at or . I nst ead, t he "co- conspi r at or " awai t i ng

t hemi n t he par ki ng l ot was a cooper at i ng wi t ness ( " I nf or mant 2" ) .

Af t er Kenney, Li t t l ej ohn, and Ar akel ow ent er ed I nf or mant 2' s car

and r evi ewed t hei r pl ans f or t he hei st , I nf or mant 2 si gnal ed t o l aw

enf orcement and t he t hr ee were ar r est ed.

I n r eal i t y, t he pl anned bur gl ar y was a r ever se st i ng

oper at i on devi sed by the Bur eau of Al cohol , Tobacco, Fi r ear ms, and

Expl osi ves ( "ATF") , whi ch had been i nvest i gat i ng Kenney si nce the

spr i ng of 2010 i n connect i on wi t h t he i l l egal sal e of f i r ear ms.

Bet ween May and December 2010, an ATF i nf or mant ( " I nf or mant 1") had

arr anged f our f i r ear m pur chases wi t h Kenney. When Kenney al l uded

dur i ng one of t hese sal es t o a "saf e j ob" he had pr evi ousl y

per f or med, I nf or mant 1 t ol d hi m about t he Br azi l i an dr ug deal er s'

st ash- house, whi ch Kenney expr essed i mmedi at e i nt er est i n robbi ng.

I nf or mant 1 cont i nued t o weave t hi s f i ct i on i n subsequent meet i ngs

wi t h Kenney, i nt r oduci ng hi m t o a "busi ness par t ner " ( i n r eal i t y

I nf ormant 2) wi t h whom Kenney pl anned t he robbery.

-3-


4/32

The r obber y scheme may have been qui xot i c, but i t s

consequences wer e al l t oo r eal f or t he conspi r at or s. On Mar ch 16,

2011, a gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed Kenney, Li t t l ej ohn, and Ar akel ow f or

conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e at l east f i ve

ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) , 846, and conspi r acy

t o commi t r obber y af f ect i ng i nt er st at e commer ce, 18 U. S. C. 1951. 1

Kenney was al so char ged as a f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m i n

f our count s ar i si ng f r om hi s 2010 gun sal es.

The pr i mar y i ssues on t hi s appeal f i r st sur f aced at

Kenney' s ar r ai gnment i n Apr i l 2011, when def ense counsel i nf ormed

t he Magi st r at e J udge t hat Kenney "ha[ d] a ser i ous medi cal

condi t i on, " t hat he had undergone br ai n surgery, and t hat he was

not r ecei vi ng medi cal t r eat ment at t he f aci l i t y i n whi ch he was

bei ng hel d. The Magi st r at e J udge r epl i ed t hat she woul d "addr ess

any mot i on t hat [ she] need[ ed] t o, " but suggest ed t hat Kenney' s

counsel "work wi t h t he Government and . . . see i f somethi ng can be

done l ess f or mal l y. "

Kenney soon ent er ed i nt o ear l y pl ea negot i at i ons wi t h t he

gover nment . I n a mi ssi ve t o t he Assi st ant U. S. At t or ney, def ense

counsel i ndi cat ed t hat "Mr . Kenny [ si c] i s suf f er i ng f r om i l l

1 Li t t l ej ohn pl eaded gui l t y t o t he r obber y conspi r acy counti n exchange f or t he gover nment ' s di smi ssal of t he dr ug conspi r acychar ge, and was sentenced t o 41 mont hs' i mpr i sonment . Ar akel owopt ed t o go t o t r i al , and i n Mar ch 2012 was convi ct ed of t her obber y conspi r acy count and acqui t t ed of t he dr ug conspi r acycount , r ecei vi ng a sent ence of 120 mont hs' i mpr i sonment .

-4-


5/32


6/32

t he pr oposed exper t ' s t est i mony "woul d pr ove ext r emel y hel pf ul t o

t he Cour t i n det er mi ni ng t he appr opr i at e sent ence f or t he

Def endant . " The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hi s mot i on, f i ndi ng t he

r equest ed sum "unr easonabl y hi gh. " Kenney f i l ed a second such

mot i on i n November 2011, t hi s t i me seeki ng $7, 000 and at t achi ng a

l et t er f r omt he put at i ve exper t deemi ng i t "absol ut el y i ndi cat ed t o

conduct an eval uat i on of cr i mi nal r esponsi bi l i t y as deci si on-

maki ng, and/ or ot her ment al f acul t i es, may have been af f ect ed" by

t he br ai n sur ger y. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t hi s mot i on i n par t ,

al l owi ng a maxi mum expendi t ur e of $4, 000.

I n March 2012, Kenney si gned a pl ea agr eement wi t h t he

gover nment , i n whi ch he agr eed to pr ovi de subst ant i al assi st ance i n

t he pr osecut i on of Ar akel ow. I n exchange, t he government woul d

di smi ss t he robbery conspi r acy charge, r ecommend a bel ow- Gui del i ne

sent ence, and move under 18 U. S. C. 3553( e) f or r el i ef f r om t he

t en- year mandatory mi ni mumsentence on t he dr ug conspi r acy count .

At Kenney' s change- of - pl ea hear i ng on March 15, however , def ense

counsel i nf or med t he cour t t hat Kenney wi shed to wi t hdr aw f r omt he

pl ea agr eement and pl ead gui l t y t o al l count s wi t hout t he benef i t

of t he agr eement . Kenney made no obj ect i on t o hi s l awyer ' s

st at ement , and t he di st r i ct cour t pr oceeded t o accept hi s pl ea on

t hat basi s.

Shor t l y t her eaf t er , Kenney sent a l et t er t o hi s at t or ney

cl ai mi ng t o have r ecei ved t hr eat s and suggest i ng a desi r e to

-6-


7/32

wi t hdr aw t he gui l t y pl ea. 2 On March 22, Kenney' s l awyer brought

t hi s l et t er t o t he cour t ' s at t ent i on at t he f i nal conf er ence bef or e

Ar akel ow' s t r i al . Whi l e admi t t i ng t hat he was "conf used by" t he

l et t er , def ense counsel t ook i t t o mean t hat Kenney "was f or ced t o

not t ake t he government deal because of what he [was] bei ng l abel ed

[ i . e. , a cooper at or ] , and . . . what he [ was] havi ng t o endur e i n

j ai l . " The di st r i ct cour t r esponded t hat i f Kenney wi shed t o

wi t hdr aw hi s pl ea, i t woul d al l ow hi m t o do so and go t o t r i al

al ongsi de Ar akel ow i n f our days.

The f ol l owi ng day, af t er meet i ng wi t h Kenney, def ense

counsel sent a l et t er t o t he gover nment and t he cour t st at i ng t hat

Kenney was "adamant " t hat he di d not wi sh t o wi t hdr aw hi s gui l t y

pl ea. The l et t er al so shed l i ght on Kenney' s sudden r epudi at i on of

t he pl ea agr eement , expl ai ni ng t hat Ar akel ow had been " t i pped of f

t o t he f act t hat Mr . Kenney was cooperat i ng" wi t h the government

and had accor di ngl y made "vei l ed t hr eat s" t o Kenney and, t hr ough

r ecent l y r el eased i nmat es, t o member s of Kenney' s f ami l y. Al t hough

i t was l i kel y t oo l at e f or Kenney t o t est i f y at Ar akel ow' s t r i al

t hr ee days l at er , t he l et t er beseeched t he gover nment t o honor t he

pl ea agr eement not wi t hst andi ng Kenney' s r ef usal t o cooper at e. The

government decl i ned t o do so, and thr ee days l ater , Kenney appear ed

2 The l et t er has appar ent l y been l ost , and i t s exact dat e i suncer t ai n. We assume f or pur poses of t hi s appeal t hat i t was sent" [ o]n or about March 21, " as Kenney cl ai ms.

-7-


8/32


9/32

spont e hi s competency t o pl ead gui l t y and 2) i nadequatel y pr obed

whether hi s pl ea was "knowi ng" and "vol unt ary" as r equi r ed under

Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11, and 3) because hi s t r i al counsel di d not

pr ovi de t he ef f ect i ve assi st ance guar ant eed under t he Si xth

Amendment . At a mi ni mum, Kenney r equest s t hat we r emand f or an

evi dent i ary hear i ng on t hese i ssues. We addr ess each of Kenney' s

chal l enges i n t ur n.

1. Competency

Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent has l ong made cl ear t hat " [ a]

cr i mi nal def endant may not be t r i ed unl ess he i s competent , and he

may not . . . pl ead gui l t y unl ess he does so ' compet ent l y and

i nt el l i gent l y. ' " Godi nez v. Mor an, 509 U. S. 389, 396 ( 1993)

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( quot i ng J ohnson v. Zer bst , 304 U. S. 458, 468

( 1938) ) ; see al so Br ady v. Uni t ed St at es, 397 U. S. 742, 758 ( 1970) ;

Pat e v. Robi nson, 383 U. S. 375, 378 ( 1966) . Thi s r equi r ement "has

a modest ai m: I t seeks t o ensure t hat [ t he def endant ] has t he

capaci t y t o under st and t he pr oceedi ngs and t o assi st counsel . "

Godi nez, 509 U. S. at 402; see al so Dusky v. Uni t ed St at es, 362 U. S.

402, 402 ( 1960) . To saf eguar d t hi s const i t ut i onal guar ant ee, a

cour t must , on ei t her par t y' s mot i on or sua spont e, or der a

compet ency hear i ng " i f t her e i s r easonabl e cause to bel i eve t hat

t he def endant may pr esent l y be suf f er i ng f r om a ment al di sease or

def ect r ender i ng hi mment al l y i ncompet ent t o t he extent t hat he i s

unabl e t o underst and t he natur e and consequences of t he pr oceedi ngs

-9-


10/32

agai nst hi m or t o assi st pr oper l y i n hi s def ense. " 18 U. S. C.

4241( a) .

Nei t her Kenney nor t he gover nment r equest ed a compet ency

hear i ng bel ow; i nst ead, Kenney aver s t hat t he cour t , pr esent ed wi t h

var i ous i nt i mat i ons of Kenney' s ment al heal t h i ssues, shoul d have

or der ed such a hear i ng on i t s own i ni t i at i ve. The gover nment

r esponds t hat Kenney has wai ved t hi s argument because he decl i ned

t o wi t hdr aw hi s al l egedl y i ncompet ent gui l t y pl ea when gi ven t he

oppor t uni t y t o do so. We decl i ne t o f i nd t hi s cl ai m wai ved,

however , because t he ver y pi t h and marr ow of Kenney' s argument i s

t hat he was i ncapabl e of underst andi ng t he natur e and consequences

of t he pr oceedi ngs agai nst hi m, r ender i ng i nt ent i onal wai ver an

i mpossi bi l i t y. See Pat e, 383 U. S. at 384 ( "[ I ] t i s cont r adi ctor y

t o ar gue t hat a def endant may be i ncompetent , and yet knowi ngl y or

i nt el l i gent l y ' wai ve' hi s r i ght t o have t he cour t det er mi ne hi s

capaci t y to st and t r i al . ") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Hur l ey, 63 F. 3d 1, 18

( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( "For obvi ous r easons, compet ency cl ai ms are not

subj ect t o or di nar y wai ver doct r i ne. " ) . We accor di ngl y r evi ew t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on not t o hol d a compet ency hear i ng f or

abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Mar yea, 704 F. 3d 55, 69 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Lebr n, 76 F. 3d 29, 32 ( 1st Ci r .

1996) . 4

4 The par t i es di sagr ee as t o t he pr oper st andar d of r evi ew.The gover nment avers t hat " [ b] ecause Kenney nei t her r equest ed acompet ency hear i ng nor obj ect ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o

-10-


11/32

On appeal , Kenney poi nt s t o sever al i t ems of evi dence

t hat he cont ends shoul d have al er t ed t he di st r i ct cour t t o t he need

f or a compet ency hear i ng: t r i al counsel ' s st atement at ar r ai gnment

t hat Kenney had undergone br ai n sur gery and was not r ecei vi ng

medi cal t r eat ment i n j ai l ; Kenney' s ci t at i on of "ser i ous heal t h

i ssues" i n hi s mot i on f or a pr e- pl ea PSR; Kenney' s ex par t e mot i ons

seeki ng f unds t o r et ai n a psychol ogi st t o assess hi s ment al

capaci t y; t he al l usi on i n one of t hese mot i ons t o "ment al di seases

or def ect s" t hat had "never been pr oper l y di agnosed or t r eat ed" ;

t he put at i ve psychol ogi cal exper t ' s opi ni on t hat i t was " absol ut el y

i ndi cat ed t o conduct an eval uat i on of cr i mi nal r esponsi bi l i t y as

deci si on- maki ng, and/ or ot her ment al f acul t i es, may have been

af f ect ed" by t he 2009 br ai n sur ger y; t he pr e- pl ea PSR, whi ch

chr oni cl ed Kenney' s hi st or y of dr ug use and not ed i nt er al i a t hat

convene one, t hi s cl ai m i s r evi ewed onl y f or pl ai n er r or . "Al t hough we di d r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or r at her t han abuse ofdi scr et i on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Gi r on- Reyes, 234 F. 3d 78, 80 ( 1stCi r . 2000) , t hat case deal t wi t h t he f ai l ur e to hol d a compet encyhear i ng under a separ at e st at ut or y pr ovi si on, 18 U. S. C. 4241( e) ,whi ch r equi r es t he cour t t o hol d a compet ency hear i ng af t er t her el ease of a def endant pr evi ousl y deemed i ncompetent andhospi t al i zed under 18 U. S. C. 4241( d) . The gover nment ci t es nocases f or t he pr oposi t i on, cont r ar y t o Mar yea and Lebr n, t hatpl ai n er r or r evi ew al so appl i es under 4241( a) , and i n any eventwe f i nd abuse of di scr et i on r evi ew mor e appr opr i at e gi ven t hei nher ent cont r adi ct i on r ecogni zed i n Pat e and Hur l ey. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Li ndsey, 339 F. App' x 956, 959 & n. 4 ( 11t h Ci r . 2009)( expl ai ni ng t hat pl ai n er r or r evi ew "woul d undul y cramp r evi ew oft he di st r i ct cour t ' s obl i gat i on t o det er mi ne f or i t sel f whet her acr i mi nal def endant i s ment al l y i ncompet ent , " and not i ng " t hat mostof our si st er cour t s appl y the abuse of di scr et i on st andar d ofr evi ew t o a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on about whet her t o sua spont eorder a competency hear i ng") .

-11-


12/32

Kenney had exper i enced changes i n mood and shor t - t erm memory l oss

si nce hi s surger y; and Kenney' s l ast - mi nut e, and at t he t i me

unexpl ai ned, wi t hdr awal f r om t he pl ea agr eement .

These f act s do i ndeed r ai se concer ns about t he gener al

st at e of Kenney' s ment al heal t h - - concer ns, we mi ght add, t hat ar e

endemi c t o t he cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst em. See gener al l y J ames &

Gl aze, Bur eau of J ust i ce St at i st i cs Speci al Repor t : Ment al Heal t h

Pr obl ems of Pr i son and J ai l I nmat es 1 ( 2006) ( r epor t i ng t hat 45%of

f eder al pr i soner s i n 2005 suf f er ed ment al heal t h pr obl ems) . But

t he quest i on bef or e us i s mor e ci r cumscr i bed: whet her t he f act s

bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t gave i t " r easonabl e cause t o bel i eve"

t hat Kenney' s ment al i l l ness r ender ed hi m" unabl e t o under st and t he

nat ur e and consequences of t he pr oceedi ngs agai nst hi mor t o assi st

pr oper l y i n hi s def ense. " 18 U. S. C. 4241( a) . As we st at ed i n

Uni t ed St at es v. Wi di , 684 F. 3d 216, 221 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , " [ a]

def endant may have ser i ous ment al i l l ness whi l e st i l l bei ng abl e t o

under st and t he pr oceedi ngs and r at i onal l y assi st hi s counsel . " The

di st r i ct cour t was ent i t l ed t o dr aw t hat concl usi on her e.

The al l egedl y i mpugni ng mental heal t h evi dence was ei t her

t oo gener al ( e. g. , Kenney' s compl ai nt of "ser i ous heal t h i ssues"

and hi st or y of dr ug use) or el se f ocused on i ssues di st i nct f r om

Kenney' s compet ency. For i nst ance, not hi ng i n t he ex par t e mot i ons

f or f unds or t he put at i ve exper t ' s l et t er i ndi cat ed concer n about

Kenney' s compet ency; i nst ead, t he st at ed r at i onal e f or t he pr oposed

-12-


13/32

exper t eval uat i on was t o "hel p[ ] . . . t he Cour t i n det er mi ni ng t he

appr opr i at e sent ence f or t he Def endant " by, i n t he exper t ' s wor ds,

"addr ess[ i ng] t he quest i on of cr i mi nal r esponsi bi l i t y" ( emphases

added) . Concer ns about di st i nct ment al f acul t i es ( deci si on- maki ng

and r esponsi bi l i t y) at an ear l i er t i me ( dur i ng t he commi ssi on of

t he of f ense) do not necessar i l y engender r easonabl e doubt s about

Kenney' s under st andi ng and abi l i t y t o assi st counsel dur i ng t he

cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs. As f or Kenney' s el event h- hour r epudi at i on of

t he pl ea agr eement , t he subsequent r evel at i on of Ar akel ow' s t hr eat s

demonst r at es t hat whi l e Kenney' s wi t hdr awal may have been l ess t han

ent i r el y vol i t i onal , i t was not necessar i l y i ndi cat i ve of

i ncompet ency. The di st r i ct cour t was ent i t l ed t o concl ude t hat

Kenney was i f anythi ng al l t oo cogni zant of t he t hr eat s t hat he

f aced and thei r possi bl e consequences.

Nor wer e al l usi ons t o Kenney' s br ai n surger y, dr ug use,

and undi agnosed or unt r eat ed ment al i l l nesses enough, i pso f act o,

t o necess i t ate a competency hear i ng. The def ense never voi ced any

speci f i c concern about Kenney' s competency; i ndeed, on t he

cont r ar y, Kenney i nf or med t he i nt er vi ewi ng Pr obat i on Of f i cer t hat

he was not exper i enci ng, and never had exper i enced, any ment al ,

emot i onal , or behavi or al pr obl ems. And as we di scuss i n gr eat er

det ai l i n sect i on A. 2 i nf r a, Kenney reaf f i r med t hi s t est i mony at

hi s change- of - pl ea hear i ng, i nf or mi ng t he di st r i ct cour t t hat he

had never been t r eat ed f or ment al or psychol ogi cal pr obl ems, t hat

-13-


14/32

t he br ai n surgery had sl owed hi s ment al pr ocesses but di d not

otherwi se i mpact hi s compr ehensi on, and t hat he underst ood t he

char ges agai nst hi m, t he penal t i es he f aced, and t he r i ght s he

r el i nqui shed by pl eadi ng gui l t y. Such af f i r mat i ons of compet ency,

even i f not concl usi ve, ar e ent i t l ed t o some wei ght when t he

def endant i s not " pl ai nl y i ncoher ent or i r r at i onal . " Wi di , 684

F. 3d at 220. We al so f i nd i t " si gni f i cant t hat . . . [ Kenney' s]

at t or ney, who mor e t han any ot her cour t r oom pl ayer ' enj oy[ed] a

uni que vant age f or observi ng whet her hi s cl i ent [ was] compet ent , '

di d not r ai se any concer n about [ Kenney' s] compet ency. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Br own, 669 F. 3d 10, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Mur i el - Cr uz, 412 F. 3d 9, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) ( i nt er nal

br acket s omi t t ed) . 5

I n shor t , al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t may have been on

not i ce t hat Kenney st r uggl ed wi t h ment al i l l ness gener al l y, we f i nd

no abuse of di scret i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o sua

spont e or der a hear i ng on t he speci f i c i ssue of compet ency. As we

have st at ed i n t he past , a hol di ng t o t he cont r ar y "woul d ' come

cl ose to r equi r i ng di st r i ct cour t s t o or der compet ency hear i ngs sua

spont e i n every case where a def endant has some hi st ory of

psychi at r i c t r eat ment and, even vaguel y, ment i ons t he pr obl em. ' "

5 That si gni f i cance i s onl y hei ght ened by t he f act t hatdef ense counsel di d r ai se concer ns about Kenney' s ment al heal t h i not her cont ext s ( e. g. , cul pabi l i t y) , suggest i ng t hat Kenney' s l awyerdi d not si mpl y t ur n a bl i nd eye to these i ssues al t oget her .

-14-


15/32


16/32

knowi ng nor vol unt ar y. Mor e speci f i cal l y, Kenney cont ends t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o adequat el y i nqui r e i nt o 1) t he ef f ect of

hi s var i ous medi cat i ons on hi s compr ehensi on and 2) t he r eason f or

hi s sudden r enunci at i on of t he pl ea agr eement . We addr ess each

argument separ atel y.

i. Medication

I n ar gui ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i nadequat el y assessed

hi s under st andi ng and knowl edge, Kenney poi nt s t o the f ol l owi ng

exchange at hi s change- of - pl ea hear i ng:

[ COURT] : Have you ever been t r eat ed f or anyment al or psychol ogi cal pr obl em?

[ KENNEY] : No.

[ COURT] : Ar e you pr esent l y t aki ng anypr escr i pt i on medi cat i on?

[ KENNEY] : Yes.

[ COURT] : I s i t any ki nd of medi cat i on t hat

woul d af f ect your abi l i t y t o under st and t hi spr oceedi ng? I s . . . your mi nd cl ear ?

[ KENNEY] : I t hi nk i t i s.

[ COURT] : You' r e t he best j udge of t hat .

[ KENNEY] : Yeah.

[ COURT] : What , j ust gener al l y, what t ype ofmedi cat i on are you t aki ng?

[ KENNEY] : I t ake f i ve or s i x of t hem. I knowa coupl e of t hem i s l i ke Al t r um, st uf f f or my- - I had br ai n sur ger y and nasal sur ger y. Soi t mi ght be t o t hat ef f ect. I ' m not sur e.

[ COURT] : Ar e you r ecover i ng now f r om t hesur ger y or - -

-16-


17/32

[ KENNEY] : I ' m t r yi ng.

[ COURT] : Tryi ng?

[ KENNEY] : Yes.

[ COURT] : But you don' t f eel t hat t hat i mpact syour abi l i t y t o under st and t hi ngs?

[ KENNEY] : Somet i mes i t t akes me a l i t t l el onger t o under st and.

[ COURT] : But your compr ehensi on i s t her e, i t ' sj ust t hat t he mental processes go a l i t t l emore sl owl y?

[ KENNEY] : Yes.

[ COURT] : Mr . Kenney, i f I st ar t speaki ng t ooqui ckl y or i f somet hi ng seems t o be passi ng byt oo qui ckl y, l et me know, and I ' l l r ephr asei t , okay?

[ KENNEY] : Okay.

Kenney poi nt s out t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s compound

i nqui r y - - "I s i t any ki nd of medi cat i on t hat woul d af f ect your

abi l i t y t o under st and t hi s pr oceedi ng? I s . . . your mi nd cl ear ?"

- - r ender s hi s r esponse ( "I t hi nk i t i s") ambi guous, as i t i s

uncl ear whi ch quest i on Kenney was answer i ng. Because " I t hi nk i t

i s" coul d be t aken as an af f i r mat i ve answer t o t he f i r st quer y,

Kenney suggest s t hat t hi s case i s si mi l ar t o Uni t ed St at es v.

Par r a- I baez, 936 F. 2d 588 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) , i n whi ch t he def endant

i nf or med t he di st r i ct cour t at hi s Rul e 11 hear i ng t hat he was

t aki ng "At i van, Hal ci on and Rest or i l " and t hat At i van was "a dr ug

t o cont r ol [ hi s] ner ves, " i d. at 591. We hel d t hat t he cour t

vi ol at ed Rul e 11 by f ai l i ng t o f ur t her i nqui r e "what ef f ect s, i f

-17-


18/32

any, such medi cat i ons mi ght be l i kel y t o have on [ t he def endant ' s]

cl ear - headedness. " I d. at 596.

We agr ee wi t h the government t hat Par r a- I baez i s

di st i ngui shabl e and t hat our mor e r ecent deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es

v. Mor r i set t e, 429 F. 3d 318 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) , di sposes of Kenney' s

cl ai m. I n Mor r i set t e, we f ound t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

quest i oni ng was "not pl ai nl y i nadequate" when t he cour t

"speci f i cal l y i nqui r ed whet her [ t he def endant ' s named] medi cat i on

. . . pr event ed [ t he def endant ] f r om under st andi ng what was

happeni ng dur i ng t he hear i ng. " I d. at 322. We not ed t hat i n

Par r a- I baez, by cont r ast , t he cour t f ai l ed t o make any such

i nqui r y at al l . I d. ; see al so Cody v. Uni t ed St at es, 249 F. 3d 47,

53 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( st at i ng t hat t he Par r a- I baez cour t "f ai l ed t o

f ol l ow up wi t h any quest i on whatsoever about whether t he

def endant ' s medi cat i on af f ect ed hi s compet ence t o pl ead") .

Her e, t oo, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s cat echi smwas not pl ai nl y

i nadequat e. Admi t t edl y, as Kenney poi nt s out , t he cour t di d not

seek t o ascer t ai n t he name and dosage of each medi cat i on. Al t hough

i t mi ght have been advi sabl e t o do so, we have recogni zed t hat

" t her e i s cer t ai nl y no set t l ed r ul e t hat a hear i ng cannot pr oceed

unl ess pr eci se names and quant i t i es of dr ugs have been i dent i f i ed. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Savi non- Acost a, 232 F. 3d 265, 269 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

Af t er aski ng Kenney about hi s medi cat i ons, t he cour t pr oceeded t o

ask hi m whet her hi s r ecover y f r om br ai n sur ger y "i mpact [ ed hi s]

-18-


19/32

abi l i t y t o under st and t hi ngs" and whet her hi s " compr ehensi on [ was]

t here, " and Kenney r esponded t hat hi s ment al pr ocesses had been

sl owed but not otherwi se i mpai r ed. 7 I n l i ght of Kenney' s

r esponses, and i n t he absence of ot her i dent i f i abl e r ed f l ags i n

Kenney' s per f or mance at t he hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

pl ai nl y er r i n opt i ng not t o i nqui r e f ur t her . See i d. at 269

( "Cour t s have commonl y rel i ed on t he def endant ' s own assur ance ( and

assur ances f r om counsel ) t hat t he def endant ' s mi nd i s cl ear . " ) .

7

We r ecogni ze t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not expl i ci t l y askwhether Kenney' s medi cat i on i mpact ed hi s underst andi ng, and thati t s i nqui r y ( "you don' t f eel t hat t hat i mpact s your abi l i t y t ounderst and thi ngs?" ) was made i n response t o Kenney' s t est i monyt hat he was t r yi ng t o r ecover f r om hi s br ai n sur ger y. Whi l e t hebest pr act i ce i s cer t ai nl y t o make a speci f i c i nqui r y r egar di ng t heef f ect s of any medi cat i ons, gi ven t he par t i cul ar f act s of t hi scase, Kenney cannot demonst r at e pl ai n er r or . Unl i ke Par r a- I baez,no competency hear i ng was r equi r ed i n Kenney' s case, see sect i onA. 1 supr a, and Kenney t ol d t he di st r i ct cour t t hat he had neverbeen t r eat ed f or ment al or psychol ogi cal pr obl ems. The di st r i ctcour t t hus had l i t t l e "r eason t o suspect t hat t he medi cat i ons t aken

by the accused mi ght i mpi nge upon t he accused' s capaci t y t o ent era vol unt ar y and i nt el l i gent pl ea. " Par r a- I baez, 936 F. 2d at 595( emphasi zi ng def endant ' s t est i mony that he t ook medi cat i on i nconnect i on wi t h hi s t r eat ment f or a "ment al or emot i onalcondi t i on") . Mor e si gni f i cant l y, t he di st r i ct cour t di d notabandon t he i mpai r ment i nqui r y af t er l ear ni ng t hat Kenney wast aki ng medi cat i on; i t pr obed f ur t her . The di st r i ct cour ti mmedi at el y f ol l owed t he di scussi on of medi cat i ons and surger y wi t ha quest i on t hat f ai r l y encompassed Kenney' s ment al i mpai r ment ,whet her caused by medi cat i ons or by t he br ai n surger y i t sel f ( "yourcompr ehensi on i s t her e, i t ' s j ust t hat t he ment al pr ocesses go al i t t l e mor e sl owl y?") . I t repeat edl y quest i oned Kenney' s

underst andi ng at each st ep of t he hear i ng, and concl uded byver i f yi ng gener al l y t hat i t had not "conf used [ Kenney] by anythi ng[ i t ] sai d or any quest i on [ i t ] asked. " These f acts, par t i cul ar l ywhen consi der ed t oget her wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s expr ess f i ndi ngst hat Kenney was wel l - or i ent ed, compet ent , and r esponsi ve dur i ng t hechange- of - pl ea hear i ng, do not suppor t a f i ndi ng of pl ai n er r or f orl ack of gr eat er speci f i ci t y i n quest i oni ng.

-19-


20/32

ii. Voluntariness

Kenney next cont ends t hat hi s gui l t y pl ea was coerced,

and t her ef or e i nval i d, due t o t he t hr eat s he r ecei ved f r om

Ar akel ow, whi ch l ed hi m t o wi t hdr aw f r om hi s pl ea agr eement . See

Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t nez- Mol i na, 64 F. 3d 719, 732 ( 1st Ci r . 1995)

( "[ A] gui l t y pl ea i s i nvol unt ar y and t her ef or e i nval i d i f i t i s

obt ai ned ' by act ual or t hr eat ened physi cal har m or by coer ci on

over bear i ng t he wi l l of t he def endant . ' " ( quot i ng Br ady, 397 U. S.

at 750) ) . At t he out set of t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng, def ense

counsel i nf or med t he cour t t hat Kenney was wi t hdr awi ng f r om t he

pl ea agr eement , but t hat he woul d never t hel ess "pl ead gui l t y and

admi t r esponsi bi l i t y f or al l of hi s own act i ons. " Kenney aver s

t hat t he cour t , pr esent ed wi t h t hi s " sudden about - f ace, " shoul d

have "ask[ ed] Kenney the obvi ous quest i on- - why are you renounci ng

your pl ea deal onl y t o pl ead gui l t y t o ever yt hi ng?"

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t di d not pose t hat quest i on,

i t di d ask Kenney whet her he was "pl eadi ng gui l t y wi l l i ngl y,

f r eel y, and vol unt ar i l y" ; whet her anyone "coer ced [ hi m] i n a

physi cal sense i nt o pl eadi ng gui l t y"; and whet her "any t hr eat s

[ had] been made, ot her t han the thr eat of bei ng pr osecut ed. "

Kenney' s answer s, whi ch "car r y a st r ong pr esumpt i on of ver i t y, " di d

not i ndi cat e any coer ci on. I d. at 733 ( quot i ng Bl ackl edge v.

Al l i son, 431 U. S. 63, 74 ( 1977) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . The di st r i ct cour t di d not need t o del ve any deeper .

-20-


21/32

We ar e not wi t hout sympathy f or Kenney i nsof ar as hi s co-

def endant ' s al l eged t hr eat s may have dr i ven hi m t o f or ego t he

benef i t of a f avor abl e pl ea agr eement and resul t ed i n a mandat or y

mi ni mum sent ence he may not ot her wi se have f aced. But whet her

Kenney was coerced i nt o wi t hdr awi ng f r om t he pl ea agr eement i s,

cont r ar y t o Kenney' s suggest i on, a whol l y di st i nct quest i on f r om

whet her he was coer ced i nt o ent er i ng a gui l t y pl ea r at her t han

goi ng t o t r i al . Cf . Weat her f or d v. Bur sey, 429 U. S. 545, 561

( 1977) ( "[ T] her e i s no const i t ut i onal r i ght t o pl ea bar gai n; t he

pr osecut or need not do so i f he pr ef er s t o go t o t r i al . " ) . Kenney

f ai l s t o show how Ar akel ow' s t hr eat s coer ced hi m not onl y i nt o

wi t hdr awi ng f r om t he pl ea agr eement but al so i nt o t aki ng t he next

st ep of ent er i ng a bar e gui l t y pl ea. 8 The di st r i ct cour t was

accor di ngl y under no obl i gat i on t o i nqui r e i nt o Kenney' s r at i onal e

f or wi t hdr awi ng f r om t he pl ea agr eement .

3. Ineffective Assistance

Turni ng f r omt he adequacy of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s Rul e 11

i nqui r y t o t he per f or mance of t r i al counsel , Kenney next ar gues

t hat he was depr i ved of hi s Si xth Amendment r i ght t o ef f ect i ve

assi st ance of counsel . Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent hol ds bot h t hat a

gui l t y pl ea may be set asi de due t o i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

counsel , Hi l l v. Lockhar t , 474 U. S. 52, 58 ( 1985) , and t hat " t he

8 I ndeed, coer ced wi t hdr awal f r om a f avor abl e pl ea agr eementwoul d i f anythi ng under mi ne a def endant ' s i ncent i ve t o pl ead gui l t yr at her t han go t o t r i al .

-21-


22/32

negot i at i on of a pl ea bar gai n i s a cri t i cal phase of l i t i gat i on f or

pur poses of t he Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o ef f ect i ve ass i st ance of

counsel , " Padi l l a v. Kent ucky, 559 U. S. 356, 373 ( 2010) ; see al so

Mi ssour i v. Frye, 132 S. Ct . 1399, 1407- 08 ( 2012) . Kenney al l eges

a number of f ai l i ngs on hi s l awyer ' s par t : f ai l ur e t o r ai se an

ent r apment def ense bef or e t he cour t or i n pl ea negot i at i ons;

f ai l ur e t o move f or a compet ency hear i ng; f ai l ur e t o i dent i f y

al t er nat i ves t o t he pr oposed exper t eval uat i on of Kenney' s ment al

heal t h when t he cour t deni ed Kenney' s r equest s f or f undi ng; f ai l ur e

t o quest i on Kenney' s deci si on t o wi t hdr aw f r omt he pl ea agr eement ;

f ai l ur e t o obj ect dur i ng t he pl ea col l oquy; and ( most cri t i cal l y i n

Kenney' s est i mat i on) f ai l ur e t o advi se Kenney t o wi t hdr aw hi s

gui l t y pl ea when gi ven t he oppor t uni t y t o do so.

Faced wi t h i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai ms on

di r ect appeal , we have r esor t ed t o t hr ee di st i nct opt i ons. "Fi r st ,

and most t ypi cal l y, we r espond t hat such cl ai ms ' must or i gi nal l y be

pr esent ed t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' as a col l at er al at t ack under 28

U. S. C. 2255" due t o t he pauci t y of t he r ecor d and t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s "bet t er posi t i on t o adduce t he r el evant evi dence" as t o

whether counsel ' s per f ormance was def i ci ent and whether such

def i ci ency pr ej udi ced t he def endant . Uni t ed St at es v. Col n-

Tor r es, 382 F. 3d 76, 84- 85 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es

v. Oval l e- Mar quez, 36 F. 3d 212, 221 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Mal a, 7 F. 3d 1058, 1063 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) .

-22-


23/32

Al t er nat i vel y, i n t he "compar at i vel y rare si t uat i ons" wher e t he

cri t i cal f act s ar e undi sput ed and t he r ecor d i s suf f i ci ent l y

devel oped, we may r esol ve t he mer i t s of t he cl ai mon di r ect appeal .

Col n- Tor r es, 382 F. 3d at 85. Fi nal l y, i n t he "gr ay ar ea bet ween

t hese t wo cat egor i es, " wher e the recor d i s embr yoni c but

"cont ai n[ s] suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a of i nef f ect i veness, " we may opt t o

r emand f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng wi t hout r equi r i ng t he def endant

t o br i ng a col l at er al chal l enge. I d.

Unsur pr i si ngl y, Kenney endeavor s t o f i t t hi s case wi t hi n

t he second, or at l east t he t hi r d, of t hese cat egor i es. We,

however , are unpersuaded. Unl i ke some of t he cases i n whi ch we

di r ect l y consi der ed i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai ms, t he al l eged

def i ci ency her e di d not consi st of an i sol at ed and easi l y anal yzed

t r i al deci si on. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Downs- Moses, 329 F. 3d

253, 265 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Nat anel , 938 F. 2d 302,

310 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) . Nor i s t he pr ej udi ce anal ysi s as

st r ai ght f or war d as i n a case wher e over whel mi ng t r i al evi dence

pr ecl udes any f i ndi ng of pr ej udi ce. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

LaPl ant e, 714 F. 3d 641, 651 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . On t he cont r ar y, i n

t hi s case we si mpl y cannot know t r i al counsel ' s r at i onal e, or l ack

t her eof , f or t he chal l enged deci si ons, nor can we know whet her

Kenney was pr ej udi ced by t hese al l eged shor t comi ngs. The r ecor d i s

t oo f r aught wi t h uncer t ai nt y t o war r ant ei t her appel l at e r esol ut i on

or r emand f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. Kenney i s f r ee, however , t o

-23-


24/32

f ol l ow t he more common avenue of r evi ew and r ai se t hese cl ai ms i n

a 2255 pet i t i on bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t . 9

B. Sentencing

I n opposi ng t he i mposi t i on of a ten- year mandator y

mi ni mum sent ence under 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , Kenney argued

bef ore t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he gover nment had engaged i n

i mpr oper sent enci ng f act or mani pul at i on. The cr ux of Kenney' s

argument was t hat ATF i mproper l y expanded t he scope of t he pl anned

r obber y f r om $100, 000 i n cash ( t he amount t hat ATF i nf or mant s

i ni t i al l y t ol d Kenney was hi dden i n t he f i ct i ve apar t ment ) t o

$200, 000 pl us f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne wort h up t o $100, 000,

t hereby subj ect i ng Kenney t o a t en- year mandat ory mi ni mumsentence

on t he dr ug conspi r acy count . The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t hi s

cl ai m, r el yi ng on r ecorded conver sat i ons bet ween Kenney and an ATF

i nf or mant est abl i shi ng Kenney' s pr edi sposi t i on. On appeal , Kenney

r ai ses bot h pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve chal l enges t o t hi s

concl usi on, aver r i ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o pr ovi de hi m

suf f i ci ent not i ce of i t s r el i ance on t he r ecor di ngs and i mpr oper l y

eval uat ed hi s sent enci ng f act or mani pul at i on cl ai m. We addr ess

each i ssue separ at el y.

9 We di r ect t he di st r i ct cour t , i f Kenney br i ngs a 2255pet i t i on, r equest s counsel , and qual i f i es f i nanci al l y, t o appoi ntcounsel f or hi m under 18 U. S. C. 3006A( a) ( 2) ( B) . See Uni t edSt at es v. Or t i z- Gr aul au, 526 F. 3d 16, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; Mal a, 7F. 3d at 1064.

-24-


25/32

1. Notice

Both t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause and Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 32

ent i t l e a def endant t o be sent enced on t he basi s of r el i abl e and

accur at e i nf or mat i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Rodr guez, 489

F. 3d 48, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ber zon, 941 F. 2d 8,

18 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) . To ef f ect uat e t hat guar ant ee, we have hel d

t hat "a def endant may not be pl aced i n a posi t i on where, because of

hi s i gnor ance of t he i nf or mat i on bei ng used agai nst hi m, he i s

ef f ect i vel y deni ed an oppor t uni t y t o comment on or ot her wi se

chal l enge mat er i al i nf or mat i on consi der ed by the di st r i ct cour t . "

Ber zon, 941 F. 2d at 21. Kenney cl ai ms t o have been l ef t i n

pr eci sel y such a pl i ght due t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r el i ance on

r ecor ded conver sat i ons bet ween hi mand t he ATF i nf ormant s; al t hough

t hese r ecor di ngs wer e admi t t ed i nt o evi dence at Ar akel ow' s t r i al ,

Kenney cl ai ms t o have r ecei ved i nsuf f i ci ent not i ce of t hembecause

"t he f i r st t i me [ he] was al er t ed t hat t he r ecor di ngs mi ght be used

at hi s sent enci ng was when he recei ved t he government ' s opposi t i on

t o hi s mot i on f or downwar d depar t ur e, " f i l ed on t he eve of

sent enci ng. As Kenney di d not r ai se t hi s argument bel ow, we r evi ew

f or pl ai n er r or onl y.

Kenney char act er i zes t hi s case as much l i ke Ber zon, wher e

we hel d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r el i ance on t est i mony f r oma co-

def endant ' s sent enci ng vi ol ated due pr ocess and Rul e 32 where the

def endant was unaware of t he t est i mony. I n so hol di ng, we

-25-


26/32

di st i ngui shed t wo cases f r om ot her ci r cui t s i n whi ch t he use of

evi dence f r om a r el at ed t r i al was uphel d, not i ng t hat i n t hese

cases, wi t h whi ch we "agr ee[ d] ent i r el y, " " t he f act s cont ai ned i n

t he t est i mony rel i ed upon wer e i ncl uded i n t he pr esent ence r epor t " ;

i n Ber zon, by cont r ast , " t he test i mony and ar gument at [ t he co-

def endant ' s] sent enci ng i ncl uded i nf or mat i on not i n t he [ PSR] nor

ot her wi se i n t he r ecor d i n Ber zon' s case. " I d. at 19- 20 ( ci t i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Not r angel o, 909 F. 2d 363 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Romano, 825 F. 2d 725 ( 2d Ci r . 1987) ) . Mor e r ecent l y, we

adher ed t o t hi s di st i nct i on i n Ri ver a- Rodr guez, hol di ng t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t coul d r el y on t est i mony f r oma co- def endant ' s t r i al

wher e, unl i ke i n Ber zon, t he i nf or mat i on el i ci t ed at t he t r i al

concer ni ng dr ug quant i t y and the dur at i on of t he conspi r acy was

"har dl y new t o [ t he def endant ] and hi s counsel " ; on t he cont r ar y,

" [ t ] he l engt h of t he conspi r acy and quant i t y of dr ugs i nvol ved wer e

set f or t h i n t he i ndi ct ment , pl ea agr eement , and PSR. " 489 F. 3d at

55.

Ber zon i s di st i ngui shabl e f or t he same r eason her e.

Not wi t hst andi ng Kenney' s pr ot est at i ons t o t he cont r ar y, our r evi ew

of t he PSR and ot her document s i n t he r ecor d persuades us t hat t he

i nf or mat i on upon whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed had l ong been

avai l abl e t o Kenney. The numerous r ecor ded conversat i ons between

Kenney and t he ATF i nf or mant s, whi ch convi nced t he di st r i ct cour t

t hat Kenney was t he "r i ngl eader" and "mast ermi nd" of t he pl anned

-26-


27/32

hei st , wer e ment i oned as ear l y as Febr uar y 17, 2011, i n an

af f i davi t by an ATF speci al agent at t ached t o t he cr i mi nal

compl ai nt . The af f i davi t st at ed i nt er al i a t hat i n conver sat i ons

wi t h I nf ormant 2, "Kenney pushed t o set up the ar med r obbery of t he

dr ug t r af f i cker s" ; t hat Kenney and Li t t l ej ohn asked I nf or mant 2

"numerous quest i ons about t he l ocat i on of t he money i n t he

apar t ment , t he number of peopl e i n t he apar t ment . . . t he l ocat i on

of f i r ear ms and i nf or mat i on about t he nei ghbors" ; t hat Kenney

suggest ed t o I nf or mant 2 t hat t hey di sgui se t hemsel ves as f eder al

agent s, al l udi ng t o past r obber i es i n whi ch he and hi s " cr ew" had

i mper sonated l aw enf or cement of f i cer s; t hat Kenney t ol d I nf or mant

2 "l et ' s do i t [ i . e. , t he r obber y] , come on"; and t hat Kenney

assur ed I nf or mant 2 " I got al l t he guys you need" and asked i f

t her e wer e "anymor e [ si c] j obs [ i . e. , r obber i es] t o do. " Bot h t he

pr e- pl ea and f i nal PSRs dr ew upon t hi s af f i davi t , and t he

gover nment al so ci t ed t hese conver sat i ons i n summar i zi ng i t s

evi dence at Kenney' s change- of - pl ea hear i ng. Thi s i nf or mat i on

t her ef or e coul d har dl y have t aken Kenney by sur pr i se at hi s

sent enci ng. We accor di ngl y f i nd no er r or , pl ai n or ot her wi se.

2. Sentencing Factor Manipulation

We have def i ned sent enci ng f actor mani pul at i on as t he

" i mpr oper enl ar ge[ ment of ] t he scope or scal e of a cr i me" by the

government i n or der " t o secur e a l onger sent ence t han woul d

ot her wi se obt ai n. " West v. Uni t ed St at es, 631 F. 3d 563, 570 ( 1st

-27-


28/32

Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. DePi er r e, 599 F. 3d 25, 28- 29

( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Font es, 415 F. 3d 174, 180 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . 10 A

successf ul cl ai mof sent enci ng f act or mani pul at i on may ent i t l e t he

def endant t o a sent ence bel ow t he st atut ory mi ni mumas an equi t abl e

r emedy. West , 631 F. 3d at 570; Font es, 415 F. 3d at 180.

The def endant must est abl i sh sent enci ng f act or

mani pul at i on by a pr eponderance of t he evi dence. West , 631 F. 3d at

570. We have consi st ent l y acknowl edged t heonerousness of t hat

t ask, descr i bi ng t he t hr eshol d as " ver y hi gh, " i d. ( quot i ng Font es,

415 F. 3d at 180) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , and

emphasi zi ng t hat t he cl ai m i s avai l abl e onl y i n " t he ext r eme and

unusual case, " i nvol vi ng, e. g. , "out r ageous or i nt ol er abl e

pr essur e" or " i l l egi t i mat e mot i ve on t he par t of t he agent s, "

Uni t ed St at es v. Mont oya, 62 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . Put

di f f er ent l y, i n or der t o succeed " t he def endant must show t hat ' t he

agent s over power ed [ hi s] f r ee wi l l . . . and caused hi m t o commi t

a more ser i ous of f ense t han he was pr edi sposed t o commi t . ' " Uni t ed

10 We have descr i bed sent enci ng f actor mani pul at i on as a

"ki ssi ng cousi n" of t he ent r apment def ense, Uni t ed St at es v.Gi bbens, 25 F. 3d 28, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) , and our pr ecedent usesi nt er changeabl y t he t er ms "sent enci ng f act or mani pul at i on" and"sent enci ng ent r apment , " whi ch ot her ci r cui t s have di st i ngui shed.DePi er r e, 599 F. 3d at 29 n. 2 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gar ci a, 79F. 3d 74, 75 ( 7t h Ci r . 1996) ; Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 18 F. 3d 1145,1152- 53 ( 4t h Ci r . 1994) ) .

-28-


29/32


30/32

$100, 000 t o $200, 000 and f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, f or whi ch t he

gover nment i n t ur n i nvent ed a pr ospect i ve buyer wi l l i ng t o pay up

t o $100, 000.

Al t hough an accompanyi ng f i ndi ng as t o the government ' s

conduct mi ght i ndeed have been pr ef er abl e, t he di st r i ct cour t di d

not er r i n r ej ect i ng Kenney' s sent enci ng f act or mani pul at i on cl ai m.

As we have al r eady st at ed, our pr ecedent r ecogni zes t hat a f i ndi ng

of pr edi sposi t i on, even t hough a "secondar y" f act or i n t he

anal ysi s, may never t hel ess t r ump a f i ndi ng of i mpr oper government al

conduct . See J aca- Nazar i o, 521 F. 3d at 59 n. 8. Our deci si on i n

Font es i s par t i cul ar l y i nst r ucti ve: al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t

f ound i mpr oper mot i ves on t he par t of t he government ( evi nced by

t he t est i mony of an FBI agent who "basi cal l y admi t t ed t hat t he

agent s wer e t r yi ng t o get a hi gher sent ence" by pur chasi ng cr ack

r at her t han powder cocai ne) , we never t hel ess uphel d i t s concl usi on

t hat "evi dence of [ t he def endant ' s] pr edi sposi t i on t o sel l crack

was . . . devast at i ng t o hi s cl ai m of sent enci ng f actor

mani pul at i on. " 415 F. 3d at 181, 183 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

br acket s omi t t ed) . Mor e speci f i cal l y, t he evi dence of

pr edi sposi t i on demonst r at ed t hat " t he gover nment , whi l e mot i vat ed

at l east i n par t by an i mpr oper desi r e t o i ncr ease [ t he

def endant ' s] sent enci ng exposur e, exert ed no undue pr essure or

coer ci on suf f i ci ent t o ' over bear t he wi l l of a per son pr edi sposed

onl y t o commi t t i ng a l esser cr i me. ' " I d. at 183 ( quot i ng Uni t ed

-30-


31/32

St at es v. Connel l , 960 F. 2d 191, 196 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ) ( i nt er nal

br acket s omi t t ed) . The same concl usi on was j ust i f i ed her e. 11

Nor ar e we per suaded by Kenney' s accompanyi ng ar gument - -

r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal and t her ef or e subj ect t o pl ai n

er r or r evi ew onl y - - t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o account

f or hi s " weakened ment al st at e" under mi ned i t s f i ndi ng of

pr edi sposi t i on. Al t hough t her e may wel l be cases i n whi ch a

def endant i s l ef t par t i cul ar l y suscept i bl e t o gover nment al

i nducement as a r esul t of ment al i mpai r ment , t her eby af f ect i ng t he

sent enci ng f act or mani pul at i on anal ysi s, Kenney poi nt s t o no

evi dence t hat hi s i s such a case. The onl y basi s Kenney of f er s f or

t hi s ar gument i s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s st at ement at sent enci ng t hat

i t woul d " t ake i nt o account " t he evi dence concer ni ng changes i n

Kenney' s per sonal i t y. But even i f t he di st r i ct cour t agr eed t hat

Kenney' s ment al st at e was r el evant t o hi s cul pabi l i t y, t hat al one

har dl y compel s t he addi t i onal i nf er ence that Kenney' s i mpai r ment

11 To t he extent Kenney chal l enges t he f act ual basi s f or t hedi st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng of pr edi sposi t i on, whi ch we r evi ew f orcl ear er r or onl y, Font es, 415 F. 3d at 181, we f i nd t hat Kenney' sr ecor ded conver sat i ons ( di scussed at gr eat er l engt h i n sect i on B. 1supr a) ampl y suppor t ed t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat Kenney waspr edi sposed t o commi t t he cr i me. Among ot her t hi ngs, Kenneyboast ed of hi s pr evi ous par t i ci pat i on i n r obber i es; r ecrui t ed

Ar akel ow and Li t t l ej ohn; asked t he ATF i nf ormant about t he pr esenceand l ocat i on of cocai ne i n t he apar t ment ; and agr eed t o wai t unt i lt he ar r i val of t he f i ct i t i ous cocai ne shi pment bef or e r obbi ng t heapar t ment . The di st r i ct cour t coul d cer t ai nl y i nf er f r om t hi sevi dence t hat Kenney' s " act i ons wer e not t he f or ced r esul t ofi nt ol er abl e pr essur e" and i nst ead r ef l ect ed hi s own pr edi sposi t i on.West , 631 F. 3d at 571.

-31-


32/32

al so render ed hi m mor e vul ner abl e to t he st i ng oper at i on or l ess

pr edi sposed t o t he cr i me. We accor di ngl y f i nd no er r or , pl ai n or

ot her wi se. 12

III.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we affirm Kenney' s convi ct i on

and sent ence.

12 We al so r ej ect Kenney' s rel at ed ar gument 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 mot i on t o r econsi der hi spr i or r equest s f or CJ A f undi ng f or a compl et e psychi at r i ceval uat i on. The di st r i ct cour t had al r eady gr ant ed Kenney a t ot alof $6, 000 t o f und t he exami nat i on; Kenney of f er s no r ebut t al t o thedi st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat hi s r equest f or an addi t i onal$6, 000 ( br i ngi ng t he t ot al amount t o $12, 000) was " excessi ve gi vent he usual char ges f or exami nat i ons of i t s t ype. "

-32-

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

United States v. Kenney, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents