Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-20520/USCOURTS-ca5-18-20520-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Manuel Pandales-Valencia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20520

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO MANUEL PANDALES-VALENCIA, also known as Swimmer,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-389-5

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Manuel Pandales-Valencia pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to a single count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

five kilograms or more of cocaine. He was sentenced to 87 months of 

imprisonment. On appeal, Pandales-Valencia argues that his guilty plea was 

involuntary due to the district court’s failure to properly admonish him 

pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

* 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

June 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-20520 Document: 00515442457 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2020
No. 18-20520

2

This court reviews allegations of Rule 11 error raised for the first time 

on appeal, such as in this case, for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 

U.S. 55, 59 (2002). To establish plain error, Pandales-Valencia must show (1) a 

forfeited error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial 

rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To show that a Rule 

11 error affected his substantial rights, a defendant “must show a reasonable 

probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United 

States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). If the defendant makes 

such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error and should do so if 

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

proceedings. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

At rearraignment, Pandales-Valencia confirmed that he knew that, 

following his conviction, he would be removed from the United States. 

However, the district court did not discuss any other possible immigration 

consequences of his plea. Although the district court deviated from the 

requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(O), PandalesValencia was advised about the potential immigration consequences he faced 

by his written plea agreement, which he acknowledged thoroughly reviewing 

and fully understanding with the assistance of his counsel. See United States 

v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d 440, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, because we 

conclude that Pandales-Valencia has failed to demonstrate that he would have 

pleaded differently absent the district court’s Rule 11 error, he has not 

established plain error. See Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-20520 Document: 00515442457 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2020