United States v. Rosario-Perez

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50544
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL ROSARIO-LOPEZ, also known as Yayo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:15-CR-1211-23

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

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

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-50544 Document: 00515520367 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2020

No. 19-50544
2
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.
Case: 19-50544 Document: 00515520367 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2020