### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Novem be r 23, 2004 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 15090 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -000 30 -C R -01-2 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C R A I G C E S A L , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 23, 2004) B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C r a i g C e s a l appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f orbe i ng apa r t i c i pa nti n a c o n s p ir a c y to d is tr ib u te m a r iju a n a , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v ii)2

and 8 46 . H e r ai se s the fol l ow i ng ar gu m ent s: (1) the F ed. R . C ri m . P . 11 pl ea c ol l oquy w a s i na de qua t e ; ( 2) the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o gr a nthi s m ot i on to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le a ; ( 3 ) th e g o v e rn m e n t b r e a c h e d th e p le a a g r e e m e n t; ( 4) C e s a l ’ s c ouns e l pr ovi de d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e dur i ng a he a r i ng on hi s m ot i on to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le a a n d a t s e n te n c in g ; ( 5 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly deni ed hi m the ri gh tt o p roce ed pro se a tse nt enci ng ; and (6) the di stri ctcourterre d i n de t e r m i ni ng hi s s e nt e nc e . T he gove rnm e ntc ont e nds tha tC e s a l w a i ve d hi s r i ght t o ap p e a l h i s s e n t e n c e i n th e p l e a a g r e e me n t . W e a f f i rm. I. Ba c k g r o und C e s a l ’ s a r gum e nt s on appe a l c a l l f ora f a i r l y c om pr e he ns i ve s t a t e m e ntof the rel ev an tfact s an d p ro ced u ral h i st o ry. C e s a l w a s s c he dul e d t o go on tr i a l w i th a c ode f e nda nton N ove m be r5, 2002, b u t th e tr ia l w a s d e la y e d w h ile C e s a l’s c o d e f e n d a n t n e g o tia te d a p le a a g r e e m e n t. T he nextm orni ng , N ov em ber 6, w hi l e the j ury w ai t ed el se w here , the court in d u lg e d th e r e q u e s t o f

C r a ig G ille n , C e s a l’s r e ta in e d c o u n s e l, f o rm o r e tim e to ne got i a t e a pl e a . A f

t e ra n hourorm or e of

c onve r s a t i on i nvol vi ng C e s a l , G i l l e n, C e s a l’s f a th e r , a n d , a t C e s a l’s r e q u e s t, th e g o v e rn m e n t, a n a g r e e m e n t w a s r e a c h e d . I n the pl e a a gr e e m e nt , C e s a l c ons e nt e d t o pl e a d gui l ty t o one c ountof conspi ra cyt o d i stri bu t e m ar i j uana, t o w ai ve hi s r i gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence3

d ir e c tly , a n d to c o o p e r a te w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. T h e g o v e rn m e n t a g r e e d to h o ld C es al ac coun t abl e f

or on l y 100 0 t o 3 00 0 k i l og ra m s of m ar i j uana. T he pl ea a gr e e m e ntpr ovi de d tha ti f C e s a l f a i l e d t o f ul f i l l hi s obl i ga t i ons unde rthe a gr e e m e nt , the di s tr i c tc our tc oul d de c l a r e C e s a l i n br e a c h, a nd the gove rnm e nt c o u ld r e c o m m e n d a n ap p r o p r ia te s e n te n c e . C es al ’ s pl eacol l oq uy w as hel d i m m edi at el y a ft erthe deal w as struck. W hen the c our ta s ke d C e s a l w he the rhe ha d be e n thr e a t e ne d orc oe r c e d i nt o pl e a di ng gu i l ty, C es al re spon ded thathe fe l tsom e pre ss ure t o p l ea d b ec ause he w as t ol d that hi s s e nt e nc e m i ghtothe rw i s e be thi r ty y e a r s t o l i f e . T he c our ts a i d tha tno one w ant s t o p l ea d g ui l ty t o a cr i m e a nd thati tw as C es al ’ s dec i si on t o m ake. C es al in d ic a te d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d , a n d th a t h e w a s m a k in g th e d e c is io n to p le a d g u ilty o n h is o w n . W hen the courtas ked w hether a ny prom i se s w er e m ade t o C es al thatw er e n o t r e f le c te d in th e p le a a g r e e m e n t, G ille n in te rru p te d C e s a l’s r e s p o n s e to e x p la in an addi t i on al t erm thathad b ee n h andw ri tt en i nt o the agree m ent . T he courtthen i nform ed C es al of hi s m andat ory m axi m um se nt ence of l i fe , the m i ni m um se nt ence of t en ye ar s, the fi ve ye art erm of supervi se d rel ea se , and the po t ent i al t o b e f i ned up t o fou r m i l l i on do l l ar s. C es al i nd i ca t ed thathe un ders t oo d. T he courtas ked w h e th e rC e s a l u n d e r s to o d th e o p e r a tio n o f th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s , a n d h e s a id4

he di d. N e xt , the c our ti nf or m e d C e s a l tha t , i f

he pl e a de d gui l ty , the gove rnm e nt w ou l d n o l on ger have t o p rove t o a j ury thatatl ea sttw o p eopl e e nt er ed i nt o an agre em entt o p osse ss and d i stri bu t e m ar i j uana, thatC es al i nt ent i on al l y bec am e a m e m be rof

the c ons pi r a c y , ortha tthe m a r i j ua na qua nt i ty w a s a tl e a s t1000 k ilo g r a m s . T he go vernm entproffe re d thati t s e vi dence w ou l d est abl i sh that : (1) C es al w a s p a r t o f

a c o n s p ir a c y to tr a n s p o r t m a r iju a n a f r o m M e x ic o th r o u g h T e x a s in to the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; ( 2) C e s a l a rr a nge d f ordr i ve r s t o tr a ns por tthe m a r i j ua na ; ( 3) C e s a l pr ovi de d a tr a i l e rw i th a f a l s e c e i l i ng t o hi de the m a r i j ua na ; ( 4) one of

the dr i ve r s w a s a rr e s t e d a nd i de nt i f i e d C e s a l a s the pe r s on t o w hom he w a s m a ki ng the de l i ve ry ; ( 5) m a r i

j ua na ha d be e n de l i ve r e d t o C e s a l ’ s bus i ne s s i n a C hi c a go s uburb; a n d , ( 6 ) C e s a l h a d a rr a n g e d f o rm a r iju a n ato b e d e liv e r e d to p u r c h a s e r s in G e o r g ia . T he c our ta s ke d w he the rthe r e w a s a ny r e a s on t o be l i e ve the gove rnm e nt coul d n otprov e the fa ct s i thad p roff er ed. G i l l en re spon ded that“ al tho ug h there a r e c e r t a i nl y s om e i s s ue s w hi c h w e m a y ha ve w i th the gove rnm e ntaboutc e r t a i n of the w i tne s s e s ’ t e s t i m ony , M r . C e s a l i s he r e t o a dm i ttha the w a s a m e m be rof the conspi ra cychar ged i n cou nton e. ” P l eaT r. at10 . G i l l en as ked C es al t o con fi rm th i s, an d C esal sai d “ b asi cal l y. ” Id . W h en p ro m p t ed , C esal el ab o rat ed : “ I g u ess I don’ ta gr e e w i th the s t ory i n i t s e nt i r e ty , butI a gr e e tha tI pl e a d gui l ty . ” I d. T he5

courtas ked C es al w hether he adm i tt ed he w as partof the conspi ra cy , and C es al s a id : “Y e s . I ju s t d is a g r e e w ith s o m e o f th e d e ta ils .” I d . I n r e s pons e t o the c our t ’ s que s t i oni ng, C e s a l i ndi c a t e d tha the ha d r e a d the pl e a a gr e e m e nt , a nd tha the be l i e ve d he unde r s t ood i t . H e a l s o i ndi c a t e d tha the unde r s t ood he ha d gi ve n up hi s r i ght s t o a tr i a l a nd t o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e . T he c o u r t a s k e d w h e th e rC e s a l p e r s is te d in h is p le a o f g u ilty , a n d C e s a l s a id h e d id . T he c our tf

ound tha tC e s a l ’ s pl e a w a s know i ng a nd vol unt a ry a nd a c c e pt e d the p le a . T h e c o u r t th e n b r o u g h t th e ju ry b a c kin to th e c o u r tr o o m a n d d is m is s e d it. A tC es al ’ s r equest , he and G i l l en m etw i th D E A S peci al A gentM ark B e r t s c h tha ta f

t e rnoon f ora tw o t o thr e e hourl ong de br i e f i ng. T he y a gr e e d t o a s e c ond de br i e f

i ng, buttha tone appa r e nt l y ne ve rt ook pl a c e be c a us e of s ubs e que nt e v e n ts . T h e d a y a f

te rC e s a l’s g u ilty p le a , C e s a l to ld G ille n th a t h e w a n te d to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le a . A w e e k la te r , C e s a l s e n t ale tte rto th e c o u r t s ta tin g th a t:

“ I b e l i e v e I e n t e r e d i n t o a p l e a a g r e e m e n twh i c h d o e s n o tr e f l e c tm y a c t i v i t i e s . ” He s a i d tha the be l i e ve d hi s pl e a s houl d be w i thdr a w n, a nd tha the w a nt e d the op po rtun i ty t o m ee tw i th the go vernm entt o “ agre e t o an accura t e pl eaagre em ent . ” C es al ’ s l ett erprom pt ed the courtt o h ol d a heari ng three w ee ks l at er . A tthat he a r i ng, G i l l e n e xpr e s s e d a de s i r e t o w i thdr a w a s c ouns e l due t o a c onf l i c t , a nd the6

courtconcl ud ed thatnew coun se l shou l d b e app oi nt ed before the pl eai ss ue w as re sol ved. A ft eran i n cam er a hea ri ng before a di ff er entdi stri ctcourtj ud ge, G i l l en w a s p e r m itte d to w ith d r a w a s c o u n s e l, a n d S a n d r a M ic h a e ls w a s ap p o in te d to r e p r e s e n t C e s a l. M ic h a e ls m o v e d to w ith d r a w C e s a l’s g u ilty p le a a n d a s k e d f o rf u n d s to c o n d u c t ap s y c h ia tr ic e v a lu a tio n o f C e s a l. T h e c o u r t o r d e r e d th e p s y c h ia tr ic ev al u at i o n , w h i ch u l t i m at el y d et erm i n ed th atC esal w as co m p et en t . B ecau se M ic h a e ls w a s d is s a tis f

ie d w ith th e s c o p e o f

th e p s y c h ia tr ic r e p o r t a n d h a d d if f ic u lty c o m m u n ic a tin g w ith C e s a l, s h e a ls o f ile d a m o tio n f

o ra n e u r o lo g ic a l e x a m in a tio n . A ta J un e 6, 20 03 , hear i ng , M i chae l s argued thatneurol og i ca l t es t i ng w as r e qui r e d t o de t e r m i ne w he the rC e s a l w a s m e nt a l l y f i te nough t o know i ngl y a nd v o lu n ta r ily p le a d g u ilty . C e s a l th e n to o k th e s ta n d in s u p p o r t o f th e m o tio n to w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl ea . H e t es t i fi ed thathe pl ea ded g ui l ty bec ause , on N ov em ber 6, 20 02 , G i l l en st at ed thathe “ had p re pare d absol ut el y no d ef ense , ” that“ he had br oughtno w i tne s s e s ” a nd “ ve ry l i tt l e m a t e r i a l e vi de nc e , ” tha the “ w oul d notbe ab le to d e f

e n d [ th e ] c a s e ,” a n d th a t h e h a d n o t p r e p a r e d a n o p e n in g s ta te m e n t. H e a r i ng T r . a t27- 28. A f t e ra r e c e s s , G i l l e n t e s t i f i e d tha the orhi s e m pl oy e e s ha d c onduc t e d m a ny m e e t i ngs w i th C e s a l abouttr i a l s tr a t e gi e s , i nve s t i ga t i ng c l a i m s , a nd the s tr e ngth of7

the gove rnm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e . H e t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d noti nf

or m e d C e s a l tha the w a s unpr e pa r e d t o pr e s e nta de f e ns e , c r os s - e xa m i ne w i tne s s e s , orgi ve a n ope ni ng st at em ent . F i nal l y, G i l l en t es t i fi ed thathe had revi ew ed and care ful l y i nv es t i gat ed the evi dence and m etw i th C es al abou tthe evi dence. In a w ri tt en order, the di stri ct c o u r t d e n ie d b o th o f

C e s a l’s m o tio n s . T he gove rnm e nti nt e rpr e t e d C e s a l ’ s t e s t i m ony a tthe he a r i ng a nd hi s a tt e m pt t o w i thdr a w hi s pl e a a s br e a c he s of the pl e a a gr e e m e nt . T hus , i tobj e c t e d t o the P S I a nd re com m ended a sent ence base d n oton the 10 00 t o 3 00 0 k i l og ra m s a gree d t o i n the pl e a a gr e e m e nt , buton the m or e tha n 10, 000 ki l ogr a m s of m a r i j ua na f or w h ic h C e s a l w a s r e s p o n s ib le , a c c o r d in g to h is s ta te m e n ts d u r in g h is d e b r ie f in g . C es al re spon ded w i th a m ot i on as ki ng the courtei ther t o enforce the pl ea a gr e e m e ntort o a l l ow hi m t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e a . A l s o, C e s a l pe r s ona l l y s e nt a l ett ert o the courtre qu es t i ng “ t o b e r epre se nt ed P ro S e, or as C o-coun se l P ro S e” because he w as havi ng di ff i cul ty c om m un i ca t i ng w i th h i s a tt orney a nd he op po se d h e rs tr a te g y . In a S ept em ber 200 3 o rder , the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatC es al had fai l ed to c o m p ly w ith th e p le a a g r e e m e n t. T h e c o u r t d e n ie d C e s a l’s le tte rm o tio n to pr oc e e d a s “ c o- c ouns e l pr o s e ” be c a us e C e s a l w a s r e pr e s e nt e d by c ouns e l a nd w ou l d h ave ari gh tt o p re se ntar gu m ent s duri ng hi s a l l ocut i on . T he courtst at ed8

thati tw ou l d h ea r, atthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , any m ot i on fr om C es al t o p roce ed pro s e . A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , M i chae l s i nd i ca t ed thatC es al w i shed t o p roce ed pro se. T he courtexpl ai ned thatC es al had a ri gh tt o repres enthi m se l f s o l on g as h e w a s n o t a c tin g to d e la y th e p r o c e e d in g s , a n d th e c o u r t in d ic a te d th a t it w o u ld r e q u ir e M ic h a e ls to r e m a in to a s s is t h im . C e s a l e x p la in e d th a t h e w a n te d to w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl eaand p roce ed t o tri al . H e a dm i tt ed thathe w as un prepare d to r e p r e s e n t h im s e lf

o n s e n te n c in g is s u e s a t th a t tim e . T h e c o u r t n o te d th a t it c ons i de r e d C e s a l t o ha ve a c t e d i n a n obs truc t i oni s tm a nne rthr oughoutthe pr oc e e di ngs . T he gove rnm e nta dde d tha ti tw oul d be pr e j udi c e d i f

the s e nt e nc i ng w e r e d e la y e d b e c a u s e S p e c ia l A g e n t B e r ts c h h a s b e e n a s s ig n e d to b e g in w o rk in S o u th A f r ic a th e n e x t w e e k . A s h o r t r e c e s s w a s ta k e n to a llo w M ic h a e ls to ta lk to C e s a l a n d e n s u r e h e w o u ld b e p r e p a r e d if h e p r o c e e d e d p r o s e th a t d a y . A f t e rthe r e c e s s , C e s a l i ndi c a t e d tha the w oul d notbe pr e pa r e d t o r e pr e s e nt hi m se l f thatday, and w ou l d acc eptM i chae l s’ re pres ent at i on . M om ent s l at er , M ic h a e ls s ta te d th a t C e s a l a g a in w is h e d to p r o c e e d p r o s e a n d th a t h e w a n te d to pres entce rt ai n i nform at i on thatw as no tavai l abl e on thatday. T he courtthen a s k e d M ic h a e ls to lis t th e e v id e n c e a n d w itn e s s e s th a t C e s a l w a n te d to p r e s e n t. T h e h ea rin g tu rn ed to th e s u b stan ti v e s en ten cin g issu es , an d th en , at C es al’s9

r e que s t , the c our tpe r m i tt e d hi m t o e xe r c i s e hi s r i ghtof a l l oc ut i on be f

or e i tm a de i t s f ac tual fi nd i ng s. C es al ’ s a l l ocut i on covered hi s c on ce rns abo uthi s gui l ty pl ea a nd M i c ha e l s ’ r e pr e s e nt a t i on, hi s a r gum e nt s aboutva r i ous s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s , a nd h i s b ack g ro u n d . T h e co u rtsen t en ced C esal t o l i fe i m p ri so n m en tan d fi v e years’ s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . C e s a l , now r e pr e s e nt e d by ne w c ouns e l , ha s appe a l e d. II. Pl e a C o l l o quy C es al ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s pl eacol l oq uy w as i nadequ at e. A s a n in itia l m a tte r , th e p a r tie s d e b a te th e s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w . T h e g o v e rn m e n t a s k s u s to re vi ew on l y f

or pl ai n err or because C es al fa i l ed t o o bj ec tt o the pl eaproceedi ng s a s they occ urre d. W e di sa gree thatpl ai n err or i s the prop erst andard here. C es al qui c kl y a s ke d t o w i thdr a w hi s pl e a i n a l e tt e rs t a t i ng tha the di d notthi nk tha tthe pl e a a gr e e m e ntr e f

l e c t e d hi s a c t i vi t i e s . T hi s i s a r guabl y a n a tt a c k on w he the rthe di stri ctcourtcom pl i ed w i th R ul e 11(b)(3) by “ det erm i n[i ng ] thatthere i s afa ctual ba s i s f orthe pl e a . ” A l s o, M i c ha e l s l a t e rf i l e d a m ot i on t o w i thdr a w C e s a l ’ s pl e a on the grou nd s thati tm i gh tno thave been kn ow i ng l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y m ade. T hat m o tio n is a r g u ab ly a n a tta c k o n w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m p lie d w ith R u le 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) , w h ic h o u tlin e s w h a t th e d e f e n d a n t m u s t k n o w b e f

o r e p le a d in g , a n d R u le 11 (b)( 2), w hi ch re qu i re s the courtt o d et erm i ne thatthe pl eai s vol un t ary. In such si tu at i o n s, w e h av e rev i ew ed o n th e m eri t s an d , i f th ere i s erro r, ap p l i ed a h arm l ess10

e rr ora na l y s i s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M onr oe , 353 F . 3d 1346, 1349 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 2003) (“ In ce rt ai n R ul e 11 app ea l s, defe nd ant s m ov ed i n the di stri ctcourtt o w i thd ra w g u i l ty p l eas b ased o n R u l e 1 1 erro r, an d th u s, o n ap p eal w e rev i ew ed fo r h arm l ess e rr orunde rR ul e 11( h) . . . . ” ) ; F e d. R . C r i m . P . 11( h) ( “ A va r i a nc e f r om the r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

th is ru le is h a r m le s s e rr o rif it d o e s n o t a f

f e c t s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts .” ) . A courtac ce pt i ng a gui l ty pl eam ustcom pl y w i th R ul e 11 and , i n p art i cul ar , a d d r e s s th r e e “c o r e c o n c e rn s ” u n d e r ly in g R u le 1 1 : ( 1 ) th a t th e g u ilty p le a is vo l un t ary; (2) thatthe defendantun ders t ands the nature of the charges ; and (3) that the de f e nda ntunde r s t a nds the c ons e que nc e s of hi s gui l ty pl e a . M onr oe , 353 F . 3d a t 1 3 5 4 . H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id s o . F i rs t , the courtdet erm i ned thatthe pl eaw as vo l un t ary. C es al i ni t i al l y s t at ed tha the f e l ts om e w ha tc oe r c e d i nt o pl e a di ng by the pos s i bi l i ty of a l ong t e rm of i m pri sonm enti f he di d n ot . W e have hel d that“ [t ] he po ss i bi l i ty of agrea t er puni s hm e nt , w i thoutm or e , doe s notr e nde ra gui l ty pl e a i nvol unt a ry . ” H i l l v. E s te lle , 6 5 3 F .2 d2 0 2 , 2 0 5 ( 5 th C ir . A u g . 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e a c te d to C e s a l ’ s s t a t e m e ntby not i ng tha tno one w a nt s t o pl e a d gui l ty t o a c r i m e , a nd em ph as i zi ng thaton l y C es al coul d d ec i de w hether t o p l ea d g ui l ty. T he court c onf i r m e d tha tthe r e ha d be e n a l e ngthy c onve r s a t i on tha tm orni ng r e ga r di ng the pl e a a gr e e m e ntw i th C e s a l , G i l l e n, a nd hi s f a m i l y pa r t i c i pa t i ng. T hr oughouttheTh edis tric t c ourt e xplaine d th ec on sp ira c y c ha rg ea s f oll ow s: 1 And what the g overnment would have to proveto this j ury beyond a re asonabledoubt before you could be f

ound guilty

would be that at lea st two people entered into an agre e ment, wh e ther f

or mal or inf or mal, to v iol atethelaws , a nd pa rticula rly a s th ey re late to the possession and distribution of marijuana. They must prove that you beca me a member of

that conspiracy

willfully and intentionally

and with knowledg e of it, and they would have to prove that the qua ntity of marijuana

involved in the conspiracy was in – at le a st a thous and kil ogra ms. Plea Tr. at 7. 11 p le a c o llo q u y th e c o u r t a s k e d C e s a l w h e th e rh e u n d e r s to o d th e p le a a g r e e m e n t, h is r i g h t s , w h a th e w o u l d b e w a i v i n g , a n d h o w s e n t e n c i n g w o u l d w o rk , a n d e a c h t i me C e s a l s a id h e d id . A t th e e n d o f th e c o llo q u y , C e s a l p e r s is te din h is g u ilty p le a . S e c ond, the c our tde t e r m i ne d tha tC e s a l unde r s t ood the na tur e of the char ges. T he courtexpl ai ned the el em ent s of the conspi ra cychar ge t o w hi ch C es al w as pl ea di ng gu i l ty by s ett i ng ou tw hatthe go vernm entw ou l d h ave t o p rove at tri al i f C es al chose nott o p l ea d g ui l ty. T he courtthen asked w hether C es al 1 un ders t oo d and he sa i d h e di d. W hi l e C es al no w sugg es t s thatthe di stri ctcourt w a s r e qui r e d t o e xpl a i n m or e f ul l y , w e ha ve he l d tha tthe e xt e ntof e xpl a na t i on r e q u ir e d v a r ie s f

r o m c a s e to c a s e a n d c h a r g e to c h a r g e , a n d w e h a v e g e n e r a lly de f e rr e d t o the “ good j udgm e ntof the c our t , [ a nd] t o i t s c a l c ul a t i on of the r e l a t i ve di f f i c ul ty of c om pr e he ns i on of

the c ha r ge s a nd of

the de f e nda nt ’ s s ophi s t i c a t i on a nd i nt e l l i ge nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e l l , 776 F . 2d 965, 968 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( i nt e rna l m a r ks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d; a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) . H e r e , the e xpl a na t i on12

w a s a de qua t e . C e s a l ’ s a c know l e dgm e nttha the unde r s t ood w ha tthe gove rnm e nt w oul d ha ve t o pr ove a ttr i a l e vi de nc e s hi s unde r s t a ndi ng of the e l e m e nt s of

the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge . T ha tC e s a l di s a gr e e d abouts om e of the de t a i l s of

the c o n s p ir a c y is n o in d ic a tio n th a t h e f a ile d to u n d e r s ta n d th a t h e w a s p le a d in g g u ilty to w illf u lly p a r tic ip a tin g in a c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s a n d d is tr ib u te m a r iju a n a . T h ir d , th e c o u r t e n s u r e d th a t C e s a l u n d e r s to o d th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h is g u ilty pl ea . Iti nform ed hi m of the m axi m um and m i ni m um se nt ence s, the po t ent i al fi ne, i t s autho ri ty t o d et erm i ne hi s s ent ence , and h i s w ai ver of hi s r i gh tt o tri al . C es al co n fi rm ed th ath e u n d erst o o d al l o f th i s. C es al ’ s other c l ai m s of e rr or do no tchange ou r a ss es sm entbecause, even as sum i ng error occurr ed, tho se errors w er e harm l es s bec ause they do n otaf fe ct C e s a l’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts .

II I. M oti on to W i th d raw G u i l ty P l ea C es al ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave permi tt ed hi m t o w i thd ra w h is g u ilty p le a b e c a u s e h e d id n o t h a v e th e b e n e f it o f “c lo s e ” c o u n s e l, b e c a u s e h is pl eaw as un kn ow i ng and i nv ol un t ary, and b ec ause the w i thd ra w al of hi s pl ea w o u l d n o th av e b u rd en ed th e j u d i ci ary. W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on t o w i thdr a w a gui l ty pl e a f or an abuse of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. F re i xas, 33 2 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 18 (11th C i r.13

2 0 0 3 ) . W e w ill o n ly r e v e r s e a d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to w ith d r a w if it i s “ arbi tra ryand u nrea sonabl e. ” I d. (c i t at i on and i nt ernal m arks om i tt ed). A defe nd antm ayw i thd ra w a gui l ty pl eabefore a s ent ence i s i m po se d i f he s h o w s a “ f

a i ra n d j u s tr e a s o n ” f

o rth e w i th d r a w a l . Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 1 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( 2 0 0 3 ) . A p r e - s e n te n c e m o tio n to w ith d r a w is to b e lib e r a lly c o n s tru e d , b u t th e r e is no abs ol ut e r i ghtt o ha ve a gui l ty pl e a w i thdr a w n. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B uc kl e s , 843 F . 2d 469, 471 ( 11th C i r . 1988) . T o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe de f e nda ntha s gi ve n a f a i ra nd j us tr e a s on f

orw i thdr a w a l , the di s tr i c tc our te xa m i ne s the t ot a l i ty of the ci rc um st ance s, i ncl ud i ng : “ (1) w hether c l ose a ss i st ance of coun se l w as avai l abl e; (2) w hether the pl eaw as kn ow i ng and v ol un t ary; (3) w hether j ud i ci al re source s w oul d be c ons e r ve d; a nd ( 4) w he the rthe gove rnm e ntw oul d be pr e j udi c e d i f

the defe nd antw er e a l l ow ed t o w i thd ra w hi s pl ea . ” F re i xas, 33 2 F . 3d at13 18 (i nt ernal m a r ks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e ha ve a l s o c ons i de r e d the de f e nda nt ’ s a dm i s s i on o f f a c tu a l g u ilt a t th e R u le 1 1 h e a r in g a n d th e tim in g o f th e m o tio n to w ith d r a w . U ni t ed S t at es v. R og er s, 84 8 F . 2d 16 6, 16 8 (11 th C i r. 19 88 ). A s to c lo s e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l, w e d e f

e rto th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c r e d ib ility d eter m in atio n th at itw as G il len , n o t C es al, w h o testified h o n es tl y a b o u t G il len ’s tri al prepara t i on s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. M cP hee, 33 6 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 75 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “ [W ] e a l l otsubst ant i al defe re nce t o the fa ct fi nd er , i n thi s c as e, the di stri ct14

court , i n rea chi ng cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s w i th res pectt o w i tness t es t i m on y. ”) ( in te rn a l m a r k s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W e a ls o a c c e p t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s ta te m e n t, i n i t s orderdenyi ng the m ot i on t o w i thd ra w the pl ea , that“ the courtob se rved M r. G i l l en ac t i vel y e ng agi ng w i th M r. C es al and h i s f am i l y a s the defendantstrugg l ed t o d ec i de w hether t o acc eptthe pl ea . ” O rderat13 (J un e 15, 20 03 ). A s t o the nextfa ct or, w e have al re ady r ej ec t ed C es al ’ s a rgum entthathi s pl ea w a s n o t k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in re ac hi ng the sa m e c on cl usi on . In the po rt i on of i t s orderdeal i ng w i th the bu rden on j ud i ci al re source s i f C es al w er e perm i tt ed t o w i thd ra w hi s pl ea , the court expl ai ned: “ If

the courttho ug htthatM r. C es al w as un aw ar e of the consequences o f h is a c tio n s w h e n h e e n te r e d th e p le a , o rth o u g h t h e w a s u n d u ly p r e s s u r e d in to e nt e r i ng the pl e a , ore ve n thoughttha the ha s t i l y e nt e r e d the pl e a w i thout c o n s i d e r i n g th e p o s s i b i l i t i e s , i two u l d g r a n th i s mo t i o n a n d s e th i s c a s e f o rtr i a l . To the contra ry , al tho ug h the ac tual pl eanego t i at i on s w er e c on du ct ed i n a fa i rl y bri ef pe r i od of t i m e , the r e i s e ve ry i ndi c a t i on tha tthe pa r t i e s e nga ge d i n m e a ni ngf ul di sc ussi on and con si dera t i on pri or t o si gn i ng . ” O rderat15 (J un e 15, 20 03 ). A s to th e th ir d f

a c to rth a t C e s a l c h a lle n g e s , w h e th e rth e w ith d r a w a l o f h is p le a w o u ld h a v e b u r d e n e d th e ju d ic ia ry , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e te rm in e d th a t it w o u ld have. T he courtw as re ady t o con du ctthe tri al atthe t i m e of C es al ’ s pl ea . P re -tri al15

p ro ceed i n g s h ad en d ed . T h e j u ry h ad b een em p an el ed an d w as i n th e co u rth o u se w a itin g to h e a rth e c a s e . A f te rC e s a l p le a d e d g u ilty , th e ju r o r s h a d b e e n s e n t h o m e . O n thi s r ec ord, and i n l i gh tof the di stri ctcourt ’ s w el l -r ea soned o rder denyi ng C es al ’ s m ot i on t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl ea , w e c anno tfi nd thatthe di stri ct c o u r t a c te d a rb itr a r ily o rc ap r ic io u s ly . T h e c o u r t’s ru lin g r e c o g n iz e d th a t ag u ilty pl e a i s nota m e a ni ngl e s s ge s tur e t o be r e nounc e d on a l a rk; i ti s a “ gr a ve a nd s ol e m n a c t , w hi c h i s a c c e pt e d onl y w i th c a r e a nd di s c e rnm e nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H y de , 520 U . S . 670, 676- 77, 117 S . C t . 1630, 1634 ( 1997) ( i nt e rna l m a rks a nd ci t at i on om i tt ed). I V. C o m pl i a nc e w i t h t he Pl e a A g r e e m e nt N e x t w e c o n s id e rw h ic h p a r ty f a ile d to c o m p ly w ith th e p le a a g r e e m e n t. C e s a l c o n te n d s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t b r e a c h e d th e a g r e e m e n t b y s e e k in g to h o ld h im r e s pons i bl e f

orm or e tha n 1000 t o 3000 ki l ogr a m s of m a r i j ua na a ts e nt e nc i ng. T he g o v e rn m e n t c o n te n d s , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a g r e e d , th a t C e s a l f a ile d to c o m p ly w i th the pl eaagre em entby, fi rs t , t es t i fy i ng un truthful l y abo utG i l l en’ s tri al pr e pa r a t i ons a tthe he a r i ng on C e s a l ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w hi s pl e a a nd, s e c ond, by a tte m p tin g to w ith d r a w h is p le a . W e de t e r m i ne w he the rthe gove rnm e ntha s br e a c he d a pl e a a gr e e m e ntde no vo . U ni t ed S t at es v. M ahi qu e, 15 0 F . 3d 13 30 , 13 32 (11th C i r. 19 98 ).16

P a r a g r ap h 1 ( b ) o f

th e p le a a g r e e m e n t r e q u ir e d C e s a l to p le a d g u ilty , to a d m it thathe w as i n fac tgu i l ty, and t o adm i tthathe w as pl ea di ng gu i l ty bec ause he w as in f a c t g u ilty . B y a tte m p tin g to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le a , C e s a l f a ile d in h is c o m m itm e n t to “tim e ly a n d c o m p le te [ ly ] f u lf ill[ ]” e a c h a n d e v e ry o f

h is ob l i gat i on s und erthe pl eaagre em ent . S ee pl eaagre em entatpara . 3. H i s f ai l ure al l ow ed the go vernm entt o i nv ok e par agraph 6(b) of the pl eaagre em entun der w hi c h i tc oul d “ r e c om m e nd the i m pos i t i on of a ny s e nt e nc e tha tthe G ove rnm e nt c o n s id e r s ap p r o p r ia te .” T h a t is ju s t w h a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d id . T h e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t b r e a c h th e p le a a g r e e m e n t.

V . In ef fe ct i ve A ss i st an ce of C ou n se l C e s a l a r gue s tha tM i c ha e l s w a s i ne f f e c t i ve dur i ng the he a r i ng on the m ot i on to w ith d r a w C e s a l’s g u ilty p le a a n d d u r in g th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . W e d e c lin e to c o n s id e rth is is s u e a t th is tim e b e c a u s e th e r e c o r d h a s n o t b e e n s u f f ic ie n tly de ve l ope d thr ough the a dve r s a r i a l pr oc e s s . C e s a l m a y r a i s e the i s s ue a ga i n thr ough a 28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on t o va c a t e . M a s s a r o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 538 U . S . 500, 504, 1 2 3 S . C t. 1 6 9 0 , 1 6 9 4 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . VI . Pr o c e e di ng Pr o Se C es al cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y notal l ow i ng hi m t o p roce edCesal’s brie fs do not clea rly identify the stag e of thedistrict court proc eeding s his pro 2 se argument targ ets. He f rame s his first issue as whether he had ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel duringthe hea

ringon his moti on to withdraw his guilty plea a nd at sentenc ing, a

nd whether

the district court compounde d the problem by denying him pro sestatus. At the motion hearing , the c ourt a ske d Ce sal whether h ewa s “re a dy and wi llingand

satis fi e d w ithproc e e dingwith [his] pre sent atto rn ey”and

Ce sal said “ [y]es , I

am.”He aringTr . at 5. Ac c ording ly wepre sumethi s argument about proc eedingpro se refers to the sentenc ing he aring . 17 pro se a thi s s ent enci ng hear i ng . U nd erthe S i xth A m endm ent , a c ri m i nal 2 d e f e n d a n th a s th e r i g h tt o r e p r e s e n th i ms e l f . Se e Fa r e tt a v . Ca l i f

o rn i a , 4 2 2 U . S. 806, 819, 95 S . C t . 2525, 2533 ( 1975) . T he de f e nda ntm us t“ know i ngl y a nd i nt el l i gent l y” re l i nq ui sh hi s r i gh tt o cou nsel . F ar ett a, 42 2 U . S . at83 5, 95 S . C t . at 25 41 ; se e a l so B row n v . W ai nw ri gh t , 66 5 F . 2d 60 7, 61 2 (F orm er5th C i r. 19 82 ) ( en ba nc ) ( “ A de f

e nda nti s e nt i t l e d t o c onduc thi s ow n de f e ns e . . . s o l ong a s the re qu es ti s i nt el l i gent l y a nd cl ea rl y m ade. ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) . “ In the abse nce of a c l e a ra nd know i ng e l e c t i on, a c our ts houl d notqui c kl y i nf e rtha ta de f

e nda nt u n s k i l l e d i n th e l a w h a s wa i v e d c o u n s e l a n d h a s o p t e d t o c o n d u c th i s o wn de f e ns e . ” B r ow n, 665 F . 2d a t610. E ve n i f the de f e nda ntc l e a r l y a s s e r t s the r i ght t o p roce ed pro se, he m ayst i l l w ai ve the ri gh t“ throu gh . . . subsequentcond uct i nd i ca t i ng he i s vac i l l at i ng on the i ss ue or has aband on ed hi s r equestal t og ether. ” Id. at61 1. W here i tappears thatthe defendanthas aband on ed hi s r i gh tt o p roce ed p r o s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t “n e e d n o t e n g a g e in a d ia lo g u e w ith [ th e ] d e f e n d a n t to det erm i ne w hether there i s aw ai ver of s el f- re pres ent at i on , i n the abse nce of s peci al c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” I d. a t612.18

P r i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, C e s a l w r ot e a l e tt e rt o the c our tr e ne w i ng hi s pr i or r e que s t s t o pr oc e e d “ P r o S e , ora s C o- c ouns e l P r o S e . ” I n i t s S e pt e m be r24, 2003 order, the di stri ctcourtsa i d thati tfe l t“ ob l i ged” t o res po nd t o C es al ’ s l ett er . It d e n ie d C e s a l’s r e q u e s t to p r o c e e d a s “c o - c o u n s e l p r o - s e ” a n d s ta te d th a t it w o u ld

“ ent ert ai n any m ot i on s def endantm i gh tm ake t o p roce ed w i tho utan att orney” at se nt enci ng . O rderat7 (S ept . 24 , 20 03 ). A ts e nt e nc i ng, a s ubs t a nt i a l a m ountof t i m e w a s de di c a t e d t o c ons i de r i ng w hether C es al w ou l d p roce ed pro se. C es al vaci l l at ed betw ee n w ant i ng t o p roce ed pro se a nd w ant i ng t o b e r epre se nt ed because he w as no tprepare d t o g o i tal on e a t th att i m e. W e co n cl u d e th atth e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr i n d en yi n g C esal ’ s req u est to p r o c e e d p r o s e . E v e n if C e s a l’s le tte rb e f

o r e s e n te n c in g w a s a c le a rr e q u e s t to p ro ceed p ro se, th atreq u estb ecam e o b scu red atth e sen t en ci n g h eari n g . B ecau se C es al changed h i s m i nd atse nt enci ng , the courtw as no tre qu i re d t o eng age i n an ext ensi ve di al og ue w i th h i m . S ee B row n, 66 5 F . 2d at61 2. A l tho ug h C es al be l a t e dl y r e a s s e r t e d the r i ghtt o pr oc e e d pr o s e , the c our tw a s notr e qui r e d t o de l ve in to it th e n b e c a u s e o f

v a c illa tio n o n C e s a l’s p a r t. I d . a t 6 1 1 .

VI I . Se nt e nc i ng C e s a l a tte m p ts to r a is e th r e e is s u e s in v o lv in g th e c a lc u la tio n o f h is s e n te n c e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e s th a t C e s a l k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily w a iv e d h is r ig h t toThe g overnment does not contend that Cesal waived his right to appeal the issue 3 i nv o l v i n g wh eth er

h e c o u l d p ro ce edp ro s e duri n g th e s ent en ci n g h eari n g.

19 appeal hi s s ent ence . 3 W e r e vi e w w he the ra de f e nda ntknow i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y w a i ve d hi s r i ght to ap p e a l d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . B e n ite z - Z ap a ta , 1 3 1 F .3 d 1 4 4 4 , 1 4 4 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 97 ). E xam i nat i on of the t extof the pl eaagre em enti s i nsuffi ci entfor a n appe a l w a i ve rt o be vol unt a ry a nd know i ng. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B us he r t , 997 F . 2d 1343, 1352 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . I ns t e a d, a di s tr i c tc our tm us tque s t i on a de f e nda nt abou ttho se as pect s of apl eaagre em entthat“ i nv ol v[e] re l i nq ui shm entof ri gh t s. ” I d. T he r e f

or e , w e w i l l onl y e nf

or c e a s e nt e nc e appe a l w a i ve ri f the gove rnm e nt e s t abl i s he s e i the r : “ ( 1) the di s tr i c tc our ts pe c i f i c a l l y que s t i one d the de f e nda nt aboutthe w a i ve rdur i ng the pl e a c ol l oquy , or( 2) the r e c or d c l e a r l y s how s tha tthe defe nd antotherw i se un ders t oo d the ful l si gn i fi ca nce of the w ai ver. ” B en i t ez-Z ap at a, 1 3 1 F . 3 d at1 4 4 6 . “ A w ai v er o f th e ri g h tt o ap p eal i n cl u d es a w ai ver of the ri gh tt o app ea l di ff i cul tor debat abl e l egal i ss ues— i nd ee d, i ti ncl ud es a w a i ve rof

the r i ghtt o appe a l bl a t a nte rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ow l e , 166 F . 3d 11 66 , 11 69 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t C e s a l k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily w a iv e d h is r ig h t to ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e . W h e n th e c o u r t a s k e d C e s a l if h e u n d e r s to o d th a t h is g u ilty pl e a m e a nttha the w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a l , C e s a l r e s ponde d, “ Y e s . ” C e s a l a l s o20

i ndi c a t e d tha the unde r s t ood the appe a l w a i ve re xc e pt i on the c our tr e a d t o hi m , a nd he s a i d he ha d r e a d the pl e a a gr e e m e nta nd unde r s t ood i t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W ea ver, 27 5 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 33 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ho l di ng thata s ent ence appeal w a i ve rw a s va l i d be c a us e “ the w a i ve rpr ovi s i on w a s r e f e r e nc e d dur i ng [ the de f e nda nt ’ s ] R ul e 11 pl e a c ol l oquy a nd [ the de f e nda nt ] a gr e e d tha ts he unde r s t ood the prov i si on and thatshe e nt er ed i nt o i tfr ee l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y” ). B ec ause C es al know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e , w e di s m i s s the appeal i nsofaras i ti nv ol ves the three se nt enci ng i ss ues thatC es al se eks t o rai se . F or the forgoi ng re as on s, w e a ff i rm C es al ’ s c on vi ct i on and d i sm i ss the part of C es al ’ s app ea l thati nv ol ves the ca l cul at i on of hi s s ent ence . A FFI R M ED I N PA R T A N D D I SM I SSED I N PA R T.