Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01580/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01580-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Jay Molzen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

Nos. 03-1580/1593

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Michael Jay Molzen,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeals from the United States

District Court for the

District of Minnesota.

[PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: May 11, 2004

 Filed: September 3, 2004

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges. 

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Michael Jay Molzen pleaded guilty to

Count I of a superseding indictment, charging him with conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court1

 sentenced him to 100 months in prison

and four years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $10,000 in restitution.

Appellate Case: 03-1580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2004 Entry ID: 1807364 
2

On appeal, Molzen’s counsel filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We dismissed the appeal because, as part

of the plea agreement, Molzen had waived his right to appeal his sentence.

Molzen then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion raising three claims,

including that the district court had failed to advise him during the change-of-plea

colloquy that restitution could be imposed, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11(c). The district court denied Molzen’s § 2255 motion but granted him

a certificate of appealability on the restitution issue. Molzen twice moved this court

to expand the certificate of appealability, and we denied each request.

Molzen also filed in the district court a motion to correct the judgment of

conviction, apparently under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. He argued that

the judgment should reflect a conviction for conspiring to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute an unspecified amount of marijuana, not for conspiring to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of

marijuana. The district court denied Molzen’s motion, and he appealed.

We consolidated the two appeals, and we now affirm.

First, assuming arguendo that the district court’s failure to comply with Rule

11(c) is cognizable in this § 2255 proceeding, but see United States v. Timmreck, 441

U.S. 780, 781-85 (1979), Molzen is entitled to no relief. Because he did not object

at the change-of-plea hearing when the district court failed to advise him about

restitution, we review only for plain error, see United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 63

(2002), requiring Molzen to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not

have pleaded guilty if the district court had advised him that he could be required to

pay $10,000 in restitution, see United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 124 S. Ct. 2333,

2340 (2004). Molzen cannot make such a showing because he was advised by the

district court at the change-of-plea hearing and by the government in the plea

Appellate Case: 03-1580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2004 Entry ID: 1807364 
3

agreement that he could be fined up to $2,000,000. “Although Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 11(c) requires the district court to explain a defendant’s liability

for both fines and restitution, we hold that failure to do so does not impact a

defendant’s substantial rights where he was warned of a potential fine larger than the

actual amount of restitution ordered.” United States v. Morris, 286 F.3d 1291, 1294

(11th Cir. 2002) (collecting cases from seven other circuits).

Second, Molzen’s motion to correct the judgment was without merit. He

pleaded guilty to a superseding indictment that charged him with a quantity of more

than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana; he was advised by the district court at the changeof-plea hearing and by the government in the plea agreement of the penalties

corresponding to that drug quantity; and he was reminded by the district court at the

outset of the sentencing hearing that he had pleaded guilty to a quantity of more than

1,000 kilograms of marijuana. The judgment of conviction thus accurately reflects

that Molzen was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1580 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/03/2004 Entry ID: 1807364