Arias Villar v. United States

Background

Walkin Arias Villar was serving a 120-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to extortion conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The charge arose from the kidnapping and torture of a Drug Enforcement Administration confidential informant. The indictment also charged conspiracy to commit kidnapping, kidnapping, and extortion, but Arias Villar pleaded guilty to the extortion-conspiracy count.

The written plea agreement stipulated to a total offense level of 33 and a Sentencing Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months. The agreement included enhancements for a threat of death, bodily injury, or kidnapping; a $500,000 ransom demand; use of a firearm; serious bodily injury; and abduction. It also included reductions for accepting responsibility and giving timely notice of the guilty plea. During the plea hearing, Arias Villar confirmed through a Spanish interpreter that he understood the agreement, had discussed it with attorney Milton H. Florez, was satisfied with Florez’s representation, and had not been induced by threats or promises. He also confirmed the offense level and guideline range, and the court explained that it could impose any sentence up to the 20-year statutory maximum.

Arias Villar was sentenced on September 15, 2021. At sentencing, Florez stated that he had no objections to the presentence report or the guideline range. After imposing sentence, the court allowed the Government to correct one reference in the report from “UC-1” to “UC-2.” Florez did not object, and the court adopted the correction.

Claims

Arias Villar initially filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without a lawyer, alleging ineffective assistance because Florez failed to object to the presentence-report correction. Through newly appointed counsel, he later added a claim that Florez had told him before the plea that his offense level would be reduced from 33 to 31 and that his guideline range would become 108 to 135 months. Arias Villar later withdrew a proposed claim challenging the restitution amount.

Court’s analysis

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Arias Villar had to show both that Florez’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the alleged error caused prejudice. For a claim involving a guilty plea, prejudice required showing a reasonable probability that, without the alleged error, Arias Villar would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.

The court rejected the claim concerning the alleged promise of a lower offense level. Arias Villar’s sworn statements during the plea hearing that no promises induced his plea, that the plea agreement was the entire agreement, and that the offense level and guideline range were 33 and 135 to 168 months contradicted his later account. He also did not mention the alleged promise or a guideline-calculation error when given an opportunity to speak at sentencing. The court further found that he did not show prejudice because he never claimed that knowing the offense level would remain at 33 would have caused him to reject or renegotiate the plea or go to trial.

The court also rejected the claim based on Florez’s failure to object to the presentence-report correction. Even assuming there could have been grounds to object, Arias Villar did not show that the correction was inaccurate, material, or related to the ransom enhancement. The report separately stated that $500,000 was demanded to secure the victim’s release, and Arias Villar had stipulated to the ransom enhancement in the plea agreement. The court therefore found no ineffective assistance.

Disposition

The court denied Arias Villar’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. It also denied his request for an evidentiary hearing, finding that the parties’ written submissions were sufficient and that a hearing was not reasonably likely to change the court’s view. The court directed the Clerk to close the identified docket entries and stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because Arias Villar had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.