UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3214

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cr-00394- v. DMG-1 YASIEL PUIG VALDES, OPINION Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 13, 2024 Pasadena, California

Filed May 29, 2025 Before: Daniel P. Collins, Holly A. Thomas, and Anthony D. Johnstone, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Collins 2 UNITED STATES V. PUIG VALDES

SUMMARY *

Criminal Law

In an interlocutory appeal by the Government, the panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that the factual basis of a pre-indictment plea agreement signed by Yasiel Puig Valdes (“Puig”) would be excluded at trial. Under the plea agreement, Puig would plead guilty to one count of making false statements to federal officers, and in exchange, the Government would recommend a reduced sentence and decline to bring an additional charge of obstruction of justice. When Puig later declined to plead guilty, the Government declared that Puig was in breach of his plea agreement, and as a remedy it sought to enforce a provision of the agreement waiving all evidentiary objections to the admission of the plea agreement’s factual basis at trial. This waiver expressly included any objections based on Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally bars the admission, against a defendant, of any statements made during plea negotiations. The district court ultimately held that Rule 410 remained applicable here, and it therefore ruled that the factual basis of Puig’s plea agreement would be excluded at trial. Viewing the language of the plea agreement against the backdrop of caselaw, the panel held that Puig’s Rule 410 waiver was not triggered here. Puig’s waiver of the protections of Rule 410 was expressly contingent on the * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. PUIG VALDES 3

district court’s finding that there was a “breach of this agreement.” The terms of that waiver are most naturally understood as requiring that there be an “agreement” that was enforceable by the court and as to which the court could therefore make the requisite finding of a breach. Because the plea agreement was a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(A) agreement requiring the district court’s approval, and because that approval never occurred, the agreement was not enforceable. The waiver, by its own terms, therefore did not apply. Consequently, Rule 410 remains applicable with full force here, and the factual basis of Puig’s plea agreement is not admissible against Puig.

COUNSEL Rajesh R. Srinivasan (argued), Jeff P. Mitchell, and Daniel G. Boyle, Assistant United States Attorneys; Bram M. Alden and David R. Friedman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Chiefs; Criminal Appeals Section; E. Martin Estrada, United States Attorney; Office of the United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Los Angeles, California; Keri C. Axel, Waymaker LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Elliott Averett (argued), Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Irvine, California; Jean-Claude André and Saurish Appleby- Bhattacharjee, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Santa Monica, California; Olaniyi Solebo, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, San Francisco, California; for Defendant- Appellee. 4 UNITED STATES V. PUIG VALDES

OPINION COLLINS, Circuit J