### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember 9, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1253 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00370 -CR- T- 30-MSS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us W ILFREDO CUERO HURTADO, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 9, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN A a nd C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: In Septem

ber 2002, a sm all boat left Buenaventura, Colom bia and headed tow ar ds a spe ed boa t anc hor ed

asho rt dis tanc e aw ay . T he sm al l bo at c ar ri ed f ive2

m en , f our of w hom ha d be en hir ed by the f if th m anto dr ive the spe ed boa t t o Guatem ala. On arriving at the speed boat, the four cr ewm em bers, one of which
wa s W ilfredo Cuero H urtado, boarded it and departed for Guatem ala. Tw o day s into th e j ourney , w ith Hurtado captaining th e speed boat, a United States navy

helicopter spotted th e speed boat and contacted the United States Coast Guar d. Upon seeing the helicopter, H urtado attem pted to flee and the cre w be gan du m

pin g se ve ra l ba le s of

c oc ai ne int o th e oc ean. D es pit e the e sc ap e ef fo rt , the Coast Guar d vessel overtoo k the speed boat and recovered the cocaine. Alater analy sis revealed that the bales contained 1,586.6 kilog ram s of cocaine. H urta do and the thr ee oth er c re wm em

be rs w er e ea chind ic te d f or one c ount of pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o di str ibu te f ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne w hil e on board ave sse l su

bj ec t t o th e j ur isd ic tio n of the U nit ed

S ta te s, a nd o ne c ount

of
co nspi ra cy

to co m m it the sam e, in vio la tio n of 46 A pp. § 19 03( a) , ( g) , (

j ), 18 U . S. C. § 2, a nd 2 1 U
. S. C. § 96 0( b) (1 )( B) (i i)
. H urta do p le ad ed gui lty to the poss es sio n c ount

a nd the gov er

nm en t di sm iss ed

the c onsp ir ac y

c ount . H urta do
w as se nte nc ed

to 210 m onths i n pr iso n. H e nowc ha lle nge s hi s c onvi ct iona nd sentence. I.3

H urta do c ont en ds tha t duri ng h is R ule 11 h eari ng the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d to advis e him

of his r igh t t o: (1 ) ple ad

not gui lty a nd p er sis t i n th at

ple a; ( 2) aha ve j ur y tr ia l; (3 ) be r ep re se nte d by c ouns el , w he the r re ta ine d or appoi nte d; ( 4) confront and cross exam ine adverse w itnesses; (5) be protected from com pelled self-incrim ination ; (6) testify and present evidence; and, ( 7) com pel the attendance of w itn es se s. A nd, a cc or din g to H urta do, the c ourt f ai le d to inf

orm him that he
w oul d w ai ve the se r igh ts b y ple ad ing gui lty
. H e ar gue s th at w ith out be ing inf orm ed of the se r igh ts, he did

not kno wa nd unde rs tand the c onse que nc es of his pl ea, an d t he refo re, i t was no t m ad e kno win gl y , vo lu nt ari ly, an d i nt el li ge nt ly. W e re vie wthe iss ue of

aRu le 11 v iol at ionf

or pla in e rr or

w he n, a s he re , the de fe ndant d id n ot r ai se a ny Ru le 11 i ssu e be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt. U nit ed S ta te s v. L ej ar de -R ad a, 319 F . 3d 1 288, 129 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3)
. U nde r that st an dard , the de fe ndant h as the bur de n to pr ove that ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed a n e rr or ( 2) that is plain, (3) that aff

ected the defe ndant’s substantial rights , and (4) that seriouslyim

plicated the fairness, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial pr oc ee din gs. I d. Whe n ade fe ndant e nte rs agui lty ple a, adis tr ic t c ourt m

ust e nsur e that “ the thr ee c or e co nc er

ns o f Ru le 11 o f the F ed er al Ru le s of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e ha ve be enm et : the gui lty

ple a m ust be f re e fr om c oe rc ion ; the de fe ndant m ust4

unde rs tand the na tur e of

the c harg es ; and, the de fe ndant m ust kno wa nd unde rs tand the c onse que nc es of his gui lty

ple a. ” I d. a t 12 89. R ec en tly , the Suprem e Court held that “ a defe ndant who seeks reversal of his conviction after a gui lty ple a, on the gr ound

that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed pla in e rr or

und er Ru le 11, m ust sho war ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity that, but f or the e rr or , he w oul d no t have entered his plea.” U nited States v. D om ingu ez-B enitez, 542 U.S . 74, __, 124 S. Ct . 23 33 , 23 40 (20 04 ). H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr . Ade fe ndant’ s w ri tte n pl ea a gr ee m en t i s part of the r ec or d of

his Ru le 11 h eari ng. U nit ed S ta te s v. Jon es , 143 F . 3d 1 417, 14 20 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Hurt ad o’s p le a ag reem en t s ta te d, T he de fe ndant a cknow le dge s th at [ he ] is en te ri ng i nto thi s a gr ee m en t and i s ple ad ing gui lty

f re el y a nd v oluntari ly

w ith out r el ianc e upona ny

dis cu ssi ons b et we en t h e a t t o rn ey fo r t h e g o v ern m en tan dt h e d ef en d an tan dd ef

en d an t ’s attor ne y a nd w ith out

pr om ise of

be ne fi t of

a ny kin d .
. . a nd w ith out

thr eats, fo rc e, int im idatio n, or

c oe rc ionof

a ny kin d.
. . . T he de fe ndant a lso understands that [he] has the right to pl ead not guil ty or to persist in that p l e ai f i t h a s a l r e a d y b e e n mad e , a n dt h a t[ h e ] h a s t h e r i g h tt o b e t r i e db y a j ur y w iththe a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el , the r igh t t o c onf ro nt and c ro ss- ex am ine the w itn es se s a ga ins t [ him ] , the r igh t a ga ins t c om pul sor y se lf -i nc ri m inatio n, and the right to com

pulso ry process for the attendance of witnesses to testify in [ his ] de fe nse ; bu t, by

ple ad ing gui lty , de fe ndant w ai ve s or giv es up those ri ght s and the re w ill be no tri al
. (R
. 1:3 5:1 3–14
. ) I n othe r w or ds, H urta do’ s pl ea a gr ee m en t i nf

orm ed him of his ri ght s. T he a gr ee m en t a lso state d th at H urta do unde rs too d th at by ple ad ing gui lty5

he gave up these rights. The m agistrate j udge, in front of w hom Hurta do entered his gui lty ple a, tw ic e as ke d H urta do, “ do y ou unde rs tand a ll the te rm s c ont ai ne d in the ple a ag re em en t?” ( R. 4:1 0; 1 4–15
. ) H urta do tw ic e re spon de d, “ Y es . ” ( R. 4:1 1; 15. ) H urta do, the n, c an not c ont en d no wthat he w as n’ t i nf orm ed of his r igh ts, or that hi s gu ilty

ple a w as not

kno w ing ly , vol unt ar ily , a nd i nte lli ge ntl y giv en . E ve n if the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d e rr ed a t the Ru le 11 h eari ng, how ev er , H urta do would still lo se. That’ s because he has not stated, in his init ial brief or anywher e el se , that he w oul d no t have ple ad ed gui lty but f or the m ag istrate j udge ’ s f

ai lur e to inform him of all his Rule 11 rights. W ithou t such an allegation, we cannot say that Hurtado’ s Rule 11 hearing was plainly err oneous . See Dom ingu ez-B enitez, 542 U . S. a t __ , 124 S
. Ct
. a t 23 40. II. Hurtado also contends th at his sentence violated the Sixth Am endm ent as in te rp ret edby Uni te d S ta te s v . Boo ke r, 54 3 U.S. _ _, 1 25 S. Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ). Beca use Hurtado ra ised the Booker issue for the first tim e on appeal, w e re view his c ont en tio n f

or pla in e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 8 (11th Cir.) , c ert. denied ___U. S. ___, 2005 W L 483174 (Jun 20, 2005). W e ha ve f

ound that a dis tr ic t c ourt m igh t m ak e tw o e rr or s w he n se nte nc ing
a de fe ndant p re -B ooke r: ac onst itu tio na l e rr or a nd a statut or y one . “ T he6

constitu tional error is the use of extra- verdict enhancem ents to reach a guidelines result that is bin ding on the sentencing j udge; th e er ror is in the m andatory

nature of the gui de lin es onc e the gui de lin es r an ge ha s be ende te rm ine d. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Ma the nia , 409 F . 3d 1 289, 129 1 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) ( quot at ion s om itt ed ). “ T he statutory err or occurs w hen the district court sentences a defendant ‘ under a
m an da tor y [ g] uid el ine s sc he m e, e ve n inthe abse nc e of aS ixth A m en dm en t en hanc em en t vi olatio n. ” I d. ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. S he lto n, 400 F . 3d 1 325, 1330 –31 (11t h Cir. 2005 )). H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t m ak e a Bo oke r co nst itu tio na l e rr or be ca use H urta do p le ad ed

gui lty to the f ac ts unde rl y ing his c onvi ct ionf or pos se ssi on o f
co cai ne an d t he en ha nc em en t fo r cap ta in in g t he bo atun de r U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c )(3). T he district court did m ake a B ooker statuto ry err or, how ever, be ca use it se nte nc ed

H urta do unde r a m an da tor y gui de lin es sc he m e. S ee S he lto n, 400 F. 3d a t 13 30–3 1. W e ha ve he ld tha t this e rr or is pla in. I d. a t 13 31. H urta do arg ue s th at

thi s e rr or a ff ec te d hi s su

bst an tia l r igh ts b ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt sa id at hi s se nte nc ing he ar ing that i t w as “ goi ng t o gi ve [ H urta do] the le as t se nte nc e that [ it co uld ] giv e [h im ] und er tho se gui de lin es . ” ( R. 5:7 . ) T ha t, contrary to Hurtado’ s argum ent, is not enough to dem onstrate that the district
co urt’ s B ooke r statut or

y e rr or a ff ec te d hi s su

bst an tia l r igh ts.7

Fi rs t, w e ha ve he ld tha t “ the f ac t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed the de fe ndant t o th e bot tom

of the appl ic ab le gui de lin es r an ge e sta bli she s on ly

that the court felt that sentence w as appropriate under the m andatory guidelin es sy stem . It doe s no t e sta

bli sh a r ea sona ble pr oba bil ity that the c ourt w oul d have im pose d a le sse r se nte nc e unde r ana dvi sor y r eg im e. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. F ie lds , 408 F . 3d 1 356, 1361 (11th Cir. 2005). Se co nd, a s w e state d inS he lto n, “ the pla in e rr or te st i s di ff

ic ult to m ee t, a nd in p ar tic ular, the bur de n of

sho w ing pr ej udi ce to m ee t the thi rd -p ro ng r equir em en t is anything but easy .” Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1331–32 (quotation s om itted). I n Shelton, the district court “ expressed several tim es its view that the sentence
re qui re d by

the G uid el ine s w as too se ve re ” an d sa id tha t the low -r an ge se nte nc e it
wa s perm itted to gi ve under the guid elines was “ ‘ m ore than appropriate.’ ” Id. at 1332
. T hose c om

m en ts, take n to ge the r, w er e sa tis fa ct or y to m ee t the he av y burden of sho wing under plain error r eview that the e rror a ffec ted his su bstantial ri ght s. H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpr es se d no suc h r eg re t a t havin g to appl y the sentencing g uidelin es to Hurtado. Nor did it su ggest that th e guidelines were part ic ularl y

hars h inhis c as e. R athe r, the dis tr ic t c ourt m er el y se nte nc ed

him to the low end of guidelines, having con sidered the § 3553 (a) factors, as it had every8

ri ght to do. T his , w e he ld i n F ie lds , is not e noug h to m ee t the thi rd pr ong pr ejud ic e te st un de r pl ai n e rro r rev ie w. III . Ac cordingly , w e A FFI RM H urtado’ s convictio n and sentence.9

T JO FL A T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , spe ci al ly

c onc ur ri ng: The c ourt rej ects appellant’ s Booker claim because, althoug h the district
co urt’ s e rr or

in se nte nc ing appe llant unde r a m an da tor y gui de lin es sc he m e is p la in, ap pe llant h as not

sho w n th at

the e rr or a ff ec te d hi s su

bst an tia l r igh ts. H e ha s no t done so b ec au se he c an ’ t po int to an ythi ng the c ourt sa id d ur ing the se nte nc ing he ar ing that w oul d pe rm it us t o c onc lud e that bu t f or the m an da tor

y na tur e of the gui de lin es , the c ourt w oul d have im pose d ale sse r se nte nc e. P ut anothe r w ay , the
co urt f ai le d to utt er

w ha t I c al l the “ m ag ic w or ds. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. T hom

pson , No. 0 4- 12 21 8 2 00 5 WL 20 99 78 4, at * 1 7- 19 (11 th Cir . Sep t. 1 , 20 05 ) (Tjofl at , J., dis se nti ng)
. W er e w e w ri tin g onac le anslate , I w oul d j ettis on the m ag ic w or ds fo rm ulatio n, w hic h th e co urt c oin ed in U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , va cate ap pe ll an t’s s en te nc e, an d re m an d t he cas e fo r res en te nc in g u nd er Bo ok er’s n ew se nte nc ing m ode l. A s I e xpl ai ne d inT hom pson , the Ro dr igu ez f

orm ulatio n

“ fo st ers di sr es pe ctforth e ru le of l aw. See 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a) (2 )( A ) (“ T he c ourt, in d et er m ini ng the part ic ular se nte nc e to b e im pose d, sha ll co nsi de r the ne ed f or the se nte nc e im

pose d to
. . . pr om ote r es pe ct f or the law . . . . ”)
. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Tho m ps on , 20 05 W L 20 99 78 4, at * 1 8.