Date: 08-07-2024

Case Style:

United States of America v. Melchor Munoz

Case Number: 4:18-CV-351

Judge: Allen C. Winsor

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Leon County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney's Office in Tallahassee

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best * Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Tallahassee, Florida immigration lawyers represented the Defendant who citizenship was attempting to be revokes.

Munoz applied for citizenship on June 6, 2009. On his application, he answered “no” to questions asking whether he had ever committed a crime or offense for which he was not arrested and whether he had ever sold or smuggled controlled substances. He certified, under penalty of perjury, that his answers were true and correct. About a month after Munoz applied for citizenship, a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer interviewed him. The officer placed him under oath and asked him whether he had ever sold or smuggled controlled substances. Munoz answered“no.” At the interview’s conclusion, he signed his naturalization application, attesting that the information in it was true and correct.Munoz’s application was approved, and he became a citizen on September 8, 2009. Before taking the oath, he completed a questionnaire in which he again answered that he had committed nocrime for which he had not been arrested nor had he trafficked con-trolled substances. Munoz certified under oath that his answers were true and correct as of that date.

Defense counsel stated that there were disputes about some of the “weight allegations” and “who was doing what for whom,” but the disputes did “not impact the weights that would give rise to the conviction.” Id. Munoz’s counsel then stated that “there would be other disputes for sentencing purposes that go not to guilt or innocence.” Id.In response, Judge Hinkle “put aside” the Statement of Facts, such that Munoz’s plea was not based on it. Id. Instead, Judge Hin-kle asked Munoz to summarize his drug activities between 2008 and 2011, the timeframe of the indictment.Id. at 9–10. Munoz, still under oath, replied that he began distributing marijuana in “[l]ate 2008” and that he got involved in distributing cocaine at the end of 2010. He confirmed that during his participation in the conspiracy he distributed at least 100 kilograms of marijuana and 5 kilograms of cocaine.Later in the hearing, the government pointed out that Munoz was a naturalized citizen and that the government might seek to revoke his citizenship, though no decision about that had been made yet. The district court warned Munoz that a criminal conviction “could have an effect on [his] citizenship status.” Doc. 1-5 at 20. Munoz confirmed that “nobody ha[d] made any promises to [him] about whether or not this will affect [his] citizenship sta-tus.”Id. at 19–20. The district court accepted Munoz’s guilty pleaand ordered a presentence investigation report.

The district court adopted the presentence investigation report, including its two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility and its guideline range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. Munoz argued for a sentence at the low end of the range; the government argued for the high end. The 2008 start date came up only once, during the government’s argument. The government high-lighted that Munoz had “been in the drug business for several years; he’s been involved with substantial amounts of marijuana and cocaine going back to I think 2008.” Crim. Doc. 586 at 16. The district court rejected the government’s argument, imposing a sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment, “the low end of the guideline range.” Id. at 19. The court “considered all of the 3553(a) factors” in reaching the sentence it imposed. Id. at 19–20. Four years later, Munoz successfully moved for a reduction of his sentence to 151 months’ imprisonment. See18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2).C.Munoz’s Denaturalization ProceedingSix years after Munoz pleaded guilty to the drug offense, the government filed this civil action seeking to revoke Munoz’s U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a). The government alleged that Munoz illegally procured his citizenship because his admission to, and conviction for, participating in the drug conspiracy precluded him from showing that he had the necessary good moral character required by 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(3). To gain citizenship, an applicant must show that he was “a person of good moral character” during the five years before the application until the grant of citizenship.

Because Munoz applied for citizenship on June 6, 2009, and re-ceived it on September 8, 2009, he was required to have been “a person of good moral character” from June 6, 2004, until Septem-ber 8, 2009. Id. As relevant here, the government alleged thatMunoz was not a person of good moral character because, during this five-year period, he committed a drug-conspiracy offense, which constituted a controlled-substance offense, a crime involv-ing moral turpitude, and an unlawful act adversely reflecting on moral character. Each of these grounds would have statutorily pre-cluded Munoz from showing he had good moral character, making his citizenship illegally procured. See id.§ 1427(a)(3). The factual basis for the government’s allegations was that Munoz “admitted that he entered into the conspiracy and began possessing and dis-tributing marijuana in late 2008, during the statutory period.” Doc. 1 at ¶ 54.Munoz responded in two ways. First, he moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his drug-conspiracy conviction and sentence. He argued that his counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to advise him that his citizenship would be—rather than could be—revoked because he pleaded guilty. He asserted that his misunderstanding of the citizenship consequences made his plea involuntary. Second, he moved to stay the denaturalization proceeding pending a ruling on his motion to vacate.The district court judge assigned to the denaturalization case, Judge Allen C. Winsor, granted the motion to stay. The USCA11 case was assigned to Judge Hinkle, who had accepted Munoz’s guilty plea. Judge Hinkle denied Munoz’s § 2255 motion, describing it as “timely but unfounded on the merits.” Crim. Doc. 614 at 2.2 Munoz appealed, and we affirmed the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, albeit because the motion was untimely. With the motion to vacate denied, Judge Winsor lifted the stay in the denaturalization proceeding. After Munoz answered the government’s complaint, the government filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Its argument tracked its complaint’s allegations:that Munoz had illegally procured U.S. citizenship because his participation in a drug conspiracy between 2008 and 2010 constituted a controlled-substance offense, a crime involving moral turpitude, and an unlawful act that reflected adversely upon his moral character.The government also argued that Munoz was collaterally estopped from denying that he participated in the drug conspiracy between June 2008 and May 2011, the dates in the second superseding indictment. It argued alternatively that Munoz was 2 Judge Hinkle concluded that Munoz’s ineffective-assistance and involuntary plea arguments in his § 2255 motion failed because Munoz’s admissions about the starting date of his involvement in the drug conspiracy during the plea colloquy were inessential to his conviction. Because the admissions were ines-sential, the legal advice Munoz received—that pleading guilty could, rather than would, lead to denaturalization—was correct. Munoz pleaded guilty after receiving this correct advice.

Outcome: For the above reasons, we vacate the district court’s order granting the government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: