Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel ROSARIO-LOPEZ, also known as Yayo, Defendant-Appellant
Manuel Rosario-Perez pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to conduct a criminal enterprise through racketeering, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The district court denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to 235 months in prison. Rosario-Perez argues that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction in light of the federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5043, because he was younger than 18 during the conspiracy.
The argument for withdrawing the plea fails under the totality of factors recognized in United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-45 (5th Cir. 1984). Rosario-Perez's assertion of actual innocence was limited to one of the acts recounted in the factual basis, and he explicitly admitted his guilt in the factual basis and at rearraignment. In addition, he had close assistance of counsel at all times, and his plea was knowing and voluntary, as the district court meticulously ascertained at rearraignment. See id. at 344-45.
Rosario-Perez's jurisdictional claim based on the JDA fails because he had reached the age of 21 prior to being indicted. See United States v. Guerrero, 768 F.3d 351, 361 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Jimenez, 256 F.3d 330, 345 & n.19 (5th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases). Further, his argument about the reduced culpability of minors fails to show any constitutional infirmity in denying JDA protection due to the defendant's age at indictment. See United States v. Bilbo, 19 F.3d 912, 915 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that the JDA's main purpose is to encourage rehabilitation and to shield juveniles from adult criminal processes); see also United States v. Lopez, 860 F.3d 201, 210 (4th Cir. 2017).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-50544
Decided: August 07, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)