UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ RIOS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-12No. No. 20-10352

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed Rodriguez-Rios's sentences, finding that even if the district court erred in proceeding with video resentencing without documented counsel consultation, the appellant failed to satisfy the plain-error standard by not showing the error affected his substantial rights or the fairness of the proceedings.

Arturo Rodriguez-Rios was convicted of conspiracy to commit hostage taking, hostage taking, and harboring illegal aliens for financial gain. He appealed his sentences, arguing that the district court violated the CARES Act by conducting his resentencing via video-teleconference without ensuring he consulted with counsel before consenting, and without adequately finding that delay would cause serious harm to the interests of justice.

The appellate court assumed arguendo that the district court committed an error but affirmed the sentences nonetheless. The court found that Rodriguez-Rios failed to demonstrate the error affected his substantial rights because he did not show he would have declined video participation or achieved a different outcome with in-person attendance. Additionally, the court determined the error did not undermine the fairness or integrity of the proceedings, particularly given that the district court explained his rights, obtained his clear consent, directed counsel to consult with him, and imposed a below-guideline sentence.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether CARES Act video-teleconference resentencing violated statutory consultation requirements
Whether failure to consult counsel before obtaining consent to waive physical presence constituted plain error
Whether any procedural error affected the defendant's substantial rights or judicial integrity

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed his sentences for conspiracy to commit hostage taking, hostage taking, and harboring illegal aliens following a district court resentencing conducted by video-teleconference.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Arturo Rodriguez-Rios appeals his sentences for Conspiracy to Commit Hostage Taking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203; Hostage Taking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203; and Harboring Illegal Aliens for Financial Gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), (a)(1)(B)(i), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues that the district court erred by proceeding with resentencing by video-teleconference because Rodriguez-Rios did not consult with counsel prior to giving his consent as required by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 15002(b)(4), 134 Stat. 281, 529 (2020). Rodriguez-Rios also argues that the district court failed to make a sufficient finding that delaying sentencing would pose “serious harm to the interests of justice.” Id. § 15002(b)(2)(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The government argues that Rodriguez-Rios affirmatively consented to being sentenced by video, did not object to the district courts findings, and therefore invited the courts error, if there was one, or waived the error. “The doctrine of invited error prevents a defendant from complaining of an error that was his own fault.” United States v. Myers, 804 F.3d 1246, 1254 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). “[A] failure to object or an uninformed representation to the court is not alone sufficient evidence of waiver. Rather, there must be evidence that the defendant was aware of the right he was relinquishing and relinquished it anyway.” United States v. Depue, 912 F.3d 1227, 1233 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc).

Here, there is insufficient evidence that Rodriguez-Rios knew he had a right to consult counsel before deciding whether to waive his physical presence at sentencing. See id. The government argues that the district courts minute entry put Rodriguez-Rios on notice of his right to consult with counsel, but the district courts minute entry did not expressly advise that Rodriguez-Rios had a right to consult counsel before deciding to waive his physical presence. Accordingly, the record does not establish that Rodriguez-Rios “affirmatively acted to relinquish a known right,” United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (emphasis added), and we review the district courts decision to proceed with sentencing by video for plain error, United States v. Lindsey, 634 F.3d 541, 555 (9th Cir. 2011).

2. To establish plain error, Rodriguez-Rios must show that: (1) there was an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious; (3) the error affected his substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Johnson, 979 F.3d 632, 636 (9th Cir. 2020).

Assuming the court erred by proceeding with resentencing by video, Rodriguez-Rios has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. See id. He does not argue that if had he consulted with counsel, he would not have agreed to proceed by video, nor that the outcome of his resentencing would have been different had he appeared in person. Accordingly, Rodriguez-Rios has not borne his burden to show the error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

Rodriguez-Rios also has not established that the asserted error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Johnson, 979 F.3d at 636. The district court went forward with resentencing because Rodriguez-Rios had been transported to Arizona, away from the BOP programming at the facility where he had been serving his original sentence. The goal of proceeding by video was to allow Rodriguez-Rios to resume participating in BOP programming as soon as possible. The district court directed counsel to consult Rodriguez-Rios about proceeding by video, explained Rodriguez-Rioss right to appear in person, solicited Rodriguez-Rioss unambiguous knowing consent to proceed by video, and imposed a below-guideline sentence. On this record, any error did not undermine the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of Rodriguez-Rioss resentencing hearing. See id.

AFFIRMED.