Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02212/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02212-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Cordero
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

77'1 ,- . ·;- ti ! .LJ .l'.....i Ju· D:ii'i:'ed Statt"3 Co,H~L-f.',.'f Ar::-:zJ.-. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 'fr-"'.':-1 ('·r~ui".. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

PATRICK CORDERO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUG 211992 

ROBERT L. HOECKE:E 

Clerl: 

No. 89-2212 

(D.C. No. CR-89-61(02)-JC) 

(D.N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant Patrick Cordero pleaded guilty to conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms of 

marijuana pursuant to 21 U.S.C. S 846. The maximum punishment for 

this offense is twenty years imprisonment or $1,000,000, or both, 

and a minimum of three years supervised release. See 21 u.s.c. 

S 84l(b)(l)(C). The district court informed Defendant of the 

maximum term of imprisonment but did not inform him of the 

supervised release requirement. The district court imposed a 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the 

case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-2212 Document: 010110287321 Date Filed: 08/21/1992 Page: 1
guideline sentence of forty-one months imprisonment and three 

years supervised release. Defendant appeals claiming that the 

district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

ll(c)(l) by not informing him of the supervised release term prior 

to accepting his guilty plea. This court has jurisdiction under 

28 u.s.c. § 1291. 

Rule ll(c)(l) requires the district court to advise a 

defendant entering a guilty plea of the mandatory minimum penalty, 

the maximum possible penalty, and any supervised release term. 

However, any variance from this procedure which does not affect 

substantial rights shall be disregarded as harmless error. Fed. 

R. Crim. P. ll(h). A district court's failure to advise a 

defendant, who is entering a guilty plea, of a mandatory term of 

supervised release constitutes harmless error, when the failure to 

advise would not have affected the defendant's decision to plead 

guilty, and the defendant's total sentence, including the term of 

supervised release, is a fraction of the maximum penalty of which 

he was advised. United States v. Barry, 895 F.2d 702, 704-5 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied 496 U.S. 939 (1990). See also United States 

v. Elias, 937 F.2d 1514, 1518-19 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Defendant does not allege that his plea would have been 

different if he had known of the supervised release term. 

Furthermore, Defendant was sentenced to forty-one months 

imprisonment and three years supervised release, a total sentence 

of six years and five months, when his maximum possible sentence 

was twenty years. We determine that the district court's failure 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2212 Document: 010110287321 Date Filed: 08/21/1992 Page: 2
to inform Defendant of his mandatory term of supervised release 

constitutes harmless error. See Elias, 937 F.2d at 1518-19; 

Barry, 895 F.2d at 705. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2212 Document: 010110287321 Date Filed: 08/21/1992 Page: 3