Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10640/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10640-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damase Cameron
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10640

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20206-BB-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAMASE CAMERON, 

a.k.a. Dime,

a.k.a. Son Son,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 17, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-10640 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 1 of 5
2

Damase Cameron appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with the 

intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) 

and 846, and possession in furtherance of, or carrying of a firearm during and in 

relation to, a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), both 

resulting from pleas of guilty. On appeal, Cameron argues that the district court 

erred when it failed to inform him prior to his guilty pleas that he might be 

sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).

1

 After careful 

consideration of the record and the briefs, we affirm.

When a defendant objects for the first time on appeal to deficiencies in his 

plea colloquy, we review for plain error. United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 

1244, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 310 (2014). To establish 

plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that

the error prejudiced his substantial rights. Id. “In the Rule 11 context, a defendant 

who seeks to establish plain error must show a reasonable probability that, but for 

the error, [the defendant] would not have entered the plea.” Id. at 1252 (quotation

omitted). Finally, we exercise our discretion under the plain error standard only if 

“the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

 1 Cameron also argues that he is entitled to have his guilty pleas vacated because, at his 

plea colloquy, the district court failed to determine whether he understood and agreed to the 

quantity of drugs attributed to his conduct. This argument is frivolous because the plea colloquy 

repeatedly discussed the drug quantity and the record is clear that Cameron understood both the 

amount of cocaine and cocaine base to which he was pleading guilty.

USCA11 Case: 15-10640 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 2 of 5
3

proceedings.” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005)

(quotation omitted).

Because a defendant waives a number of constitutional rights by entering a 

guilty plea, due process requires the he make the plea “knowingly and voluntarily.” 

United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005). In accepting a 

defendant’s guilty plea, a court “must comply with Rule 11 and specifically 

address three ‘core principles,’ ensuring that a defendant (1) enters his guilty plea 

free from coercion, (2) understands the nature of the charges, and (3) understands 

the consequences of his plea.” Id. Under Rule 11, the district court must “inform 

the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands . . . the nature of 

each charge to which the defendant is pleading . . .” and “any maximum possible 

penalty” or “mandatory minimum penalty.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(G), (H), (I). 

The Rule also requires that the defendant be made aware of the advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines calculation process. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(M).

We have held that “there is no one mechanical way or precise juncture to 

which a district judge must conform in advising a defendant of the charges to 

which he is pleading guilty.” United States v. Mosley, 173 F.3d 1318, 1322-23 

(11th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). Instead, we review the record as a whole to 

see if the core principles of Rule 11 are satisfied. Id. at 1323. Each plea colloquy 

is assessed individually based on various factors including “the simplicity or 

USCA11 Case: 15-10640 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 3 of 5
4

complexity of the charges and the defendant’s sophistication and intelligence.” Id.

at 1322-23. Finally, it is not plain error when a court fails to advise a defendant of 

the existence of a particular Guidelines provision that may enhance the sentence. 

See United States v. Bozza, 132 F.3d 659, 661-62 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Bozza’s 

contention that his purported lack of notice of the possible enhancement violated 

Rule 11 is without merit. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1) advisory committee notes 

(1989) (‘Since it will be impracticable, if not impossible, to know which guidelines 

will be relevant prior to the formulation of a presentence report and resolution of 

disputed facts, [Rule 11(c)(1)] does not require the court to specify which 

guidelines will be important or which grounds for departure might prove to be 

significant.’”)).

During the plea colloquy, the court also informed Cameron that he might be 

sentenced anywhere between the statutory minimum and maximum, and that any 

guideline range estimated by his counsel was not necessarily going to be accurate. 

Cameron acknowledged this and proceeded with his plea. He cannot now claim 

that the court erred by not informing him of the possibility he may receive a higher 

sentence as a career offender when he was informed of the possibility he might 

receive any sentence within the statutory range. Moreover, the district court asked 

Cameron if he had discussed with his attorney the advisory Sentencing Guidelines 

and how they might apply to his case. Cameron replied that he had. The district 

USCA11 Case: 15-10640 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 4 of 5
5

court did not plainly err because such a conversation with his attorney would have 

informed Cameron of the potential incarceration consequences of his pleas. Even 

assuming arguendo that the district court committed any error, Cameron has failed 

to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have entered 

the guilty pleas, as his argument to that effect is simply a conclusory statement.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-10640 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 5 of 5