Sisnero-Gil v. United States

Background

Marlon Sisnero-Gil, representing himself, sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure that allows a prisoner to challenge an illegally imposed conviction or sentence. He asked the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his 180-month sentence following his guilty plea to three charges connected to drug trafficking and failing to appear in court.

The drug charges arose from a cocaine-trafficking organization that transported cocaine from Puerto Rico to New York. After being arrested, Sisnero-Gil fled to the Dominican Republic shortly before trial using a false passport. He was arrested more than two years later and extradited to the United States. In 2019, he pleaded guilty to the three charges under a plea agreement.

The agreement contemplated a sentencing-guidelines range of 121 to 151 months and stated that Sisnero-Gil appeared eligible for a two-level safety-valve reduction and relief from a statutory minimum sentence, if he satisfied the applicable requirements. At sentencing, however, the government argued that Sisnero-Gil had not been truthful during a proffer session. His lawyer withdrew the request for safety-valve relief, and the court applied a two-level increase for obstruction of justice based at least on his failure to appear. The court calculated a guidelines range of 151 to 188 months and imposed 180 months’ imprisonment.

Claims and Analysis

Sisnero-Gil raised three ineffective-assistance claims. To succeed, he had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the alleged error probably affected the result.

Translation and guilty plea. Sisnero-Gil argued that his lawyer failed to provide adequate Spanish translation during meetings and did not provide a written Spanish translation of the plea agreement, making his guilty plea uninformed. The court rejected the claim. It found that his allegations were vague and contradicted by the record, including his sworn statements during the plea hearing that he had discussed the agreement with counsel, had it read or translated into Spanish, understood the consequences of pleading guilty, and had an opportunity to ask questions. The court also noted that a certified Spanish interpreter translated the plea hearing. In addition, Sisnero-Gil did not show that better translation would have caused him to reject the plea and go to trial.

Safety-valve reduction. Sisnero-Gil argued that his lawyer should have continued to seek the sentencing reduction. The court found that counsel had investigated the issue by reviewing evidence cited by the government and contacting potential witnesses. Counsel concluded that the witnesses would not voluntarily testify, might invoke their constitutional protection against self-incrimination, and were not wanted by Sisnero-Gil as witnesses. Sisnero-Gil also declined to testify. The court found that counsel reasonably concluded he could not prove eligibility and that pursuing the issue could have harmed Sisnero-Gil. Independently, the court found no prejudice because Sisnero-Gil offered no evidence showing that he could have rebutted the government’s claim that he was untruthful or that the sentence would have been lower.

Obstruction enhancement. Sisnero-Gil argued that counsel should have challenged the two-level obstruction increase because it was based on the same failure to appear underlying his separate conviction. The court found no valid objection. Under the applicable sentencing rules, the failure-to-appear charge was grouped with the drug charges and treated as obstruction of the underlying offenses. The court therefore concluded that the enhancement was properly applied and that an objection would not have changed the sentence.

The court decided the motion using the existing written record, including the parties’ declarations, the plea agreement, hearing transcripts, and sentencing submissions. It concluded that no evidentiary hearing was necessary.

Disposition

The court denied Sisnero-Gil’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Sisnero-Gil had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore ruled that Sisnero-Gil could not proceed without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the civil case.