FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB 27, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 06- 14929 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 0 1 1 - CR- CB 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 K E L V I N E L L I S , 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 So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 27, 2007) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D ef endant -app el l antK el vi n E l l i s pl ea ded g ui l ty t o p osse ss i on of a f i re arm by a c onvi c t e d f

e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ; r obbe ry , i n vi ol a t i on of 182

U .S .C . § 1 9 5 1 ; a n d u s in g a n d b r a n d is h in g a f ir e a rm d u r in g a c r im e o f v io le n c e , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c ). A tthe c ha nge - of

- pl e a he a r i ng, the c our ti nf or m e d E l l i s tha tthe m a xi m um t erm s of i m pri sonm entand sup ervi se d rel ea se for the § 9 24 (c ) c harge w er e s even y e a r s im p r is o n m e n t a n d , e rr o n e o u s ly , th r e e y e a r s s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), de t e rm i ni ng the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge t o be 51 t o 63 m onths on the § 922( g) a nd § 1951 c ount s , w i th a m a nda t ory c ons e c ut i ve t e rm of 84 m onths i m pr i s onm e nt on the § 924( c ) c ount . T he P S I a l s o c orr e c t l y not e d tha tthe m a xi m um t e rm of s u p e rv i s e d r e l e a s e f

o rth e § 9 2 4 ( c ) c o u n tw a s th r e e t o f i v e y e a r s u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3583( b) ( 1) a nd U . S . S . G . § 5D 1. 2( a ) ( 1) . I tdoe s notappe a rtha tE l l i s m a de a ny obj e c t i ons t o the P S I . T he c our ts e nt e nc e d E l l i s t o 51 m onths i m pr i s onm e nton the § 9 22 (g) a nd § 1 95 1 charges, t o run concurrent l y, and a consecut i ve 84 -m on th t erm o f im p r is o n m e n t o n th e § 9 2 4 ( c ) c h a r g e , f o ra to ta l o f

1 3 5 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. T he c our ti m pos e d thr e e y e a r s of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e on the § 922( g) a nd § 1951 coun t s, w i th a concurrentfi ve-y ea r t erm of supervi se d rel ea se on the § 9 24 (c ) c ount . E l l i s now appe a l s , a s s e r t i ng a vi ol a t i on of F e d. R . C r i m . P . ( “ R ul e ” ) 11 be c a us e the c our ti m pr ope r l y a dvi s e d hi m of the t e rm of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e on the § 9 2 4 ( c ) c o u n t.3

Wh e n a d e f

e n d a n tf a i l s t o a s s e r ta R u l e 1 1 v i o l a t i o n i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we re vi ew for pl ai n err or. U ni t ed S t at es v. Q ui no nes, 97 F . 3d 47 3, 47 5 (11 th C i r. 1996) . T o e s t abl i s h pl a i n e rr or , E l l i s m us ts how “ tha tthe r e w a s e rr or , tha tthe e rr or w a s pl a i n, a nd tha ti ta f f e c t e d hi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , i . e . , the e rr ora f f e c t e d the ou t com e of the di stri ctcourtproceedi ng s. ” O nce the appel l antprov es these three el em en t s, th i s co u rtm ay co rrectth e erro r o n l y i f i t“ seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d. In eval uat i ng w hether the r e w a s a ny e f

f e c ton the de f

e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , w e m a y c ons i de rthe r e c or d a s a w hol e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M onr oe , 353 F . 3d 1346, 1350 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V onn, 535 U . S . 55, 59, 122 S . C t . 1043, 1046, 152 L .E d .2 d 9 0 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ) . U nd erR ul e 11, the di stri ctcourtm ustaddres s three core pri nci pl es before a c c e pt i ng a gui l ty pl e a : “ ( 1) the gui l ty pl e a m us tbe f r e e f r om c oe r c i on; ( 2) the d efen d an tm u stu n d erst an d th e n atu re o f th e ch arg es; an d (3 ) th e d efen d an tm u st k n o w an d u n d erst an d th e co n seq u en ces o f h i s g u i l ty p l ea. ” U n i t ed S t at es v . Jo n es, 1 4 3 F .3 d 1 4 1 7 , 1 4 1 8 - 1 4 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . R u le 1 1 a ls o r e q u ir e s th e c o u r t to in f o rm th e d e f

e n d a n t o f “a n y m a x im u m p o s s ib le p e n a lty , in c lu d in g im p r is o n m e n t, f in e , a n d te rm o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e .” F e d . R . C r im . P . 1 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( H ) . A s the go vernm entconcedes, the courti m prop er l y a dv i se d E l l i s of the t erm4

of supervi se d rel ea se for the § 9 24 (c ) c ou nt . T hu s, there w as an error thatw as p l ai n . U n i t ed S t at es v . C arey, 8 8 4 F . 2 d 5 4 7 , 5 4 9 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 9 ). N ev erth el ess, E l l i s i s n o ten t i t l ed t o rel i ef b ecau se th e erro r d i d n o taffect hi s su b st an t i al ri g h t s. A tthe pl eacol l oq uy, E l l i s w as i nform ed of an i ncorrec tt erm of supervi se d r e l e a s e . H ow e ve r , the P S I c orr e c t l y i ndi c a t e d the t e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , a nd E l l i s di d notobj e c tt o the P S I ’ s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e c a l c ul a t i on. M or e ove r , a f t e rthe c our ti m pos e d s e nt e nc e , i nc l udi ng the f i ve y e a r s of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , E l l i s di d not obj ec tt o the t erm . T hu s, the error di d n otaf fe ctE l l i s’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. U ni t ed S tates v . B ejar an o , 2 4 9 F .3 d 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 0 7 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) ( re jectin g th e d ef

en d an t’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d pl a i n e rr orby f a i l i ng t o i nf

orm hi m of th e te rm o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e b e c a u s e th e d e f e n d a n t’s “c o n d u c t in d ic a te s th a t h is subst ant i al ri gh t s w er e notaf fe ct ed by the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure t o i nform hi m at hi s pl eacol l oq uy of the spec i fi c t erm of supervi se d rel ea se re qu i re d b y s t atut e. ”) ; C a r e y , 8 8 4 F .2 d a t 5 4 9 ( h o ld in g th a t a lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y f a ilin g to i nf orm the de f

e nda nta thi s pl e a he a r i ng of the t e rm of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , the defe nd antfa i l ed t o o bj ec tt o the court ’ s i m po si t i on , pu rs uantt o the P S I, of a t erm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , a nd, the r e f or e , the de f

e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s w e r e not v i o l a t e d ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e A F F I R M.