United States v. Pascual Dionicio Jeronimo

Opinion by Judge GOULD; Dissent by Judge BERZON.

We consider whether a plea agreement is enforceable and effectively waives the right of appeal. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to assess the merits of this direct appeal.

I

In July 2002, Pascual Dionicio Jeronimo (“Jeronimo”) faced a potential maximum sentence of thirty years imprisonment for various drug trafficking offenses when he entered into plea negotiations with the government. Through his former attorney, John Kolego (“Kolego”), Jeronimo reached a plea agreement on November 1, 2002, whereby the government agreed to dismiss some of his pending charges, recommend downward departure and a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range, refrain from seeking an upward departure, and reduce his maximum potential sentence to twenty years. In return, Jeronimo agreed to plead guilty to two counts of drug trafficking, admit to specific drug quantities, forfeit his interest in certain property, and to waive his rights to appeal and to collaterally attack the length of his sentence. Both Jeronimo and Kolego signed the plea agreement. Immediately above Jeronimo’s signature in capital letters was the following…

dissenting:

On March 17, 2003, Pascual Jeronimo filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea due to “inadequate and fraudulent representation by [his] attorney.” At the hearing on this motion, Jeronimo, represented by new counsel, was asked whether, “[djuring the conversations with your attorney, did the phrase ‘career offender’ ever come up?” He answered “No, he didn’t tell me anything about that,” and maintained that “I made a deal with my attorney, I trusted in him, sir, and I signed for 87 months. When I realized that the sentence was longer, if I had realized, if I known [sic] that, I wouldn’t have sign [sic] it.” After a hearing that included a lengthy examination and cross-examination of Jeronimo and argument from counsel on both sides, the district court, noting that the accusation that the “defense attorney blew the career offender issue” was made without evidence from the attorney, determined that the truth or falsity of Jeroni-mo’s account did not matter. Rather, said the district court, “even if that was the case” — that is, even if the defense attorney did “bl[o]w the career offender issue” — “a perfect attorney doesn’t exist, and the question is whether a…

398 F.3d 1149 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pascual Dionicio JERONIMO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 03-30394. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted September 13, 2004. Filed February 23, 2005. Richard L. Fredericks, Eugene, OR, for the defendant-appellant. Karin J. Immergut, United States Attorney, District of Oregon, and Frank R. Papagni, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, District of Oregon, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Michael R. Hogan, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-02-60067-1-MRH. Before WALLACE, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge GOULD; Dissent by Judge BERZON. GOULD, Circuit Judge. 1 We consider whether a plea agreement is enforceable and effectively waives the right of appeal. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to assess the merits of this direct appeal. 2 * In July 2002, Pascual Dionicio Jeronimo ("Jeronimo") faced a potential maximum sentence of thirty years imprisonment for various drug trafficking offenses when he entered into plea negotiations with the government. Through his former attorney, John Kolego…