[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 19 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 04 83 -SDM- MAP-3

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROGELIO TORRES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 3, 2 01 3) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ro ge li o To rres ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi rin g t o i nt erfe re wi th Case: 11-14199 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 1 of 9co m

m erce th ro ug h v io le nc e, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 51 (a) (C ou nt1), ai di ng an d abe tt in g t he in te rfer en ce wi th co m m erce th ro ug h v io le nc e, invi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 51 (a) and2 (C ou nt2), a ndaid in g a ndab etti ng th e b ran di sh in g of a fi rearm du rin g a ndinrel at io n t o acri m e o f vi ol en ce, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i i) a nd2 (C ou nt3). Onap pe al , Torre s ar gu es th athi s g ui lt y pl eas were n otkn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry be cau se (1) he was n ev er s pe ci fic al ly info rm ed th ataness en ti al ele m en t o f Co un t 1 was t ha t h is co nduc t af fect“ in te rs ta te ” co m m erce , (2) th e in di ctm en t fa il edto pro vi de su ffi ci en t s pe ci fic it y inall eg in g t he ro bb ery of

fen se inCo un t 2 , and(3) th e in di ctm en t ch arg edinCo un t 3 th at Co un t 2 was t he pre di cat e o ffen se whi le hi s p le a ag reem en t “ effe ct iv el y am en de d th is ch arg e” b y

id en ti fy in g b ot h C ou nt s 1 an d 2 as p red ic at e o ffen se s. To rres als o arg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on ov er Co un ts 2 an d 3 be cau se th e in di ctm en t, wh ic h d idno t al le ge in te rfer en ce wi th “ in te rs ta te ” co m m erce , fai le d t o ch arg e a fed eral off

en se , a juri sd ic ti on al de fectno t wai ve d b y hi s g ui lty

pl ea. I. W e rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r co ns ti tu ti on al ob jecti on s n otrai se d b efo re the di st ric t co urt. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo ri ar ty , 42 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 18 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Whe n ade fen da ntfai ls to ob ject t o aFed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e Ru le 11 vi ol at io n, we al so rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. Id . at 1 01 9. To est ab li shpl ai n e rro r, a 2 Case: 11-14199 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 2 of 9de fen da ntm us t s ho w (1) anerro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Id. If al l thr ee co nd it io ns are m et , we m ay reco gn iz e anerro r on ly if th e erro r “ se rio us ly affect [s ] th e fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Id. (ci ta ti on om it te d) . In the co nt ex t o f a Ru le 11 erro r, pr ejud ic e to th e d efen da ntm ean s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utforth e err or , th e d efen da nt wou ldno t h av e en te redth e g ui lt y pl ea. Id. at10 20 . A gu il ty ple a p ur su an t t o R ul e 1 1( a)(1 ) is th e wai ve r of a nu m be r of a de fen da nt ’s con st itut io na l ri gh ts an d a n a dm is si on of t he ele m en ts of t he form al cri m in al ch arg e an d m

us t the refo re b e m ad e kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y

to sat is fy th e requi rem en ts of t he Due P ro ces s C laus e. McCa rthyv. Uni te d Sta tes , 39 4 U.S. 45 9, 4 66 , 89 S. Ct. 1 16 6, 1 17 1 (1 96 9) . A gu il ty ple a can no t b e trul y vo lu nt ary un le ss th e d efen dantpo ss es se s an un de rs ta nd in g o f th e la w inrel at io n t o t he fact s, an d, t o t hi s en d, the co urt m us t i nqui re i nt o t he de fen da nt ’s un de rs ta nd in g o f th e na tu re o f th e ch arg e an d t he co ns eque nc es of h is pl ea, an d s at is fy it se lf t ha t the re is a factua l b as is forth e p le a. Id. at 4 66 -6 7, 8 9 S . Ct. at11 71 . Inord er t o c om

pl y with R ul e 1 1, a c ou rt a ccep ti ng a gu il ty ple a m us t

“ sp eci fic al ly addres s thr ee ‘cor e p rin ci pl es ,’ en su rin g tha t a d efen da nt(1) en te rs hi s g ui lt y pl ea fr ee fr om

co erci on , (2) un de rs ta nd s the na tu re o f th e ch arg es , and (3 ) un de rs ta nd s the co ns eque nc es of h is pl ea.” Mor ia rt y , 42 9 F .3dat 1 01 9 3 Case: 11-14199 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 3 of 9(ci ta ti on om it te d) . W e rev ie w whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt ad equa te ly ens ur edth at

th e d efen da ntun de rs to odth e n atur e o f th e ch arg e o n acas e-b y -cas e b as is . Uni te d St at es v. Ja mes , 21 0 F .3d13 42 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). W e h av e h el d t ha t [f]or s im pl e ch arg es . . . a rea di ng of the in di ctm en t, fo ll owe d b y an op po rtu ni ty giv enth e d efen da ntto askqu es ti on s ab ou t i t, wi ll us ua ll y su ffi ce. Ch arg es of am or e co m pl ex na tu re, i nc or

po rat in g e so te ric te rm s o r co nc ep ts un fam il ia r to th e la y m in d, m ay

requi re m or e ex pl ic at io n. Inth e cas es of e xtrem e co m pl ex it y , an e xp la na ti on of t he el em en ts of t he off

en se li ke th atgi ve n t he jury in it s i ns tru ct io ns m ay be requi red . Id. at 1 34 5 (c it at io n o m it te d) . In Ja mes , we hel d tha t the sec on d c or e co nc ernwas no t s at is fie d wh ere, ev enth ou ghth e d efen da ntin di cat edth athe un de rs to odth e na tu re o f th e o ffen se , nei th er the di st ric t co urt n orth e wri tt enpl ea ag reem en t sp eci fie d the ele m en ts of aco m pl ex ch arg e ari si ng un de r th e Trav el Act. Id. at13 45 -4 6. Sect io n 1 95 1 o f Tit le 18 of t he U.S. Cod e, kn own as t he Hob bs Act, d efi ne s th e o ffen se of i nt erfe ren ce wi th co m m erce by thre at s o r vi ol en ce as Who ev er i n a ny way

or d eg ree o bs tru ct s, d el ay s, o r affe ct s co m m erce orth e m ov em en t o f an y

art ic le or c omm od it y

inco m m erce , by ro bb ery orex to rti onor a tt em pt s o r co ns pi res so to do , or c omm it s o r th reat en s p hysic al vi ol en ce t o a ny pers onor p ro pe rty in f urth eran ce o f a p la n o r pu rp os e to do an yth in g i n v io la ti on of t hi s s ect io n s ha ll be fin edun de r th is ti tl e o r im pr is on edno t m or e th antwen ty y ears , or bo th . 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 1( a). W e h av e h el d t ha t “ [t]wo el em en ts are es se nt ia l fo r a Ho bb s 4 Case: 11-14199 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 4 of 9Act p ro se cu ti on : ro bb ery an d a n e ffec t o n c omm erce .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 21 8 F .3d12 43 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). The Ho bb s Actde fin es co m m erce as co m m erce withi n t he Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a, orany

Terri to ry or Po ss es si on of t he Uni te d S ta te s; all co m m erce be twee n a ny po in t i n a St at e, Terri to ry , Pos se ss io n, o r th e Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a an d any po in t ou ts id e th ereo f; a ll co m

m erce be twee n p oi nt s wi th in th e sa m e St at e th ro ug h any pla ce o ut si de su chSta te ; an d a ll ot he r co m m erce ov er whi chth e Uni te d S ta te s h as juri sd ic ti on . 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 1( b) (3 ). “ The go ve rn m en t n eed s o nl y to est ab li sha m in im al effe ct on in te rs ta te co m

m erce to supp ort a v io la ti on of t he Hob bs Act.” Rod ri gu ez , 21 8 F.3 d a t 1 24 4. Fi na ll y , “ [a]n am en dm en t t o a n i nd ic tm en t o ccu rs ‘ whe n t he ess en ti al el em en ts of t he off

en se co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ctm en t ar e al te redto bro ad enth e po ss ib le ba se s fo r co nv ic ti on be y on d wh atis co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ctm en t.’” Uni te d St at es v. Denn is , 23 7 F .3d12 95 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . The re was no erro r, pl ai n o r ot he rwis e, in th e d is tri ctco urt’s ac cep ta nc e o f Torr es ’s gu il ty ple as be cau se th e rec or d s ho ws tha t h e und ers to odth e n atur e o f each of t he ch arg es ag ai ns t h im an d t ha t h is gu il ty ple as were fu ll y in fo rm edan d kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry . Torre s ar gu es th atitwas p la inerro r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt no t t o u se th e wor d “ in te rs ta te ” whe n a ccep ti ng hi s p le a, bu t the ne ces sa ry juri sd ic ti on al ele m en ts of § 19 15 (a) are “ ro bb ery” and“ aneffe ctonco m m erce .”

5 Case: 11-14199 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 5 of 9Rod

ri gu ez , 21 8 F .3dat 1 24 4. Th e in di ctm en t, p le a ag reem en t, an d c ha ng e-o f-p le a he ari ng all co rrec tl y

co nt ai ne d t he se ele m en ts of C ou nt s 1 an d 2 . Add it io na ll y , be fo re the m ag is tra te jud ge , Torre s s ta te d t ha t h is co un se l ex pl ai ne d the requi red el em en ts of t he ch arg edoff en se s an d t ha t h e und ers to odth e ch arg es an d e le m en ts of th es e o ffen se s. Inrefe ren ce t o C ou nt1, the m ag is tra te refe ren cedth e d efi ni ti on of co m m erce in§ 1 95 1; inrefe ren ce t o C ou nt2, the m ag is tra te jud ge in di cat ed th atth e g ov ern m en t wo ul d h av e to sh ow tha t To rres ’s act io ns “ ob st ru ct ed , de la y ed , or a ffec te d i nt ers ta te co m m erce .” The re co rdis cle ar tha t To rres was aware th atth e g ov ern m en t wo ul d h av e to pro ve “ aneffe cton co m m erce ” in ord er to co nv ic t h im

onCo un ts 1 an d 2 . In re fere nc e to Co un t 3 , th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th is Co un t wer e n ev er al te redto bro ad enth e b as is for th e co nv ic ti on ; und er the Not ic e o f Fac ts , Pen al ty andElem en ts an d t he pl ea ag reem en t, the go ve rn m en t was requi redto pro ve bo th Co un ts 1 an d 2 as p red ic at e o ffen se s fo r Co un t 3 . The se pre di cat e o ffen se s wer e p ro ve n b y Torr es ’s gu il ty ple a. II. Whe th er an in di ctm en t s uf fic ie nt ly alle ge s a s ta tu to ril y pro sc rib edoff

en se is a que st io n o f la w th atwe rev ie w de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ste el e , 17 8 F .3d12 30 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). “ An i nd ic tm en t i s s uf fic ie ntif i t: (1) pre se nt s the ess en ti al el em en ts of t he ch arg edoff en se , (2) no ti fie s the accu se d o f th e ch arg es to be

6 Case: 11-14199 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 6 of 9de fen de d a ga in st , and(3) en ab le s the accu se d t o re ly upo n ajud gm en t u nd er the

in di ctm en t as a ba r ag ai ns t d oubl e jeop ardy foran y subs eque ntpro se cu ti on forth e sa m e o ffen se .” Id

. at 1 23 3- 34 (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . W e h av e h el d t ha t s pe ci fic refe ren ce t o t he st atut e o n wh ic h t he ch arg e was ba se d a de qu at el y in fo rm s the de fen da ntof t he ch arg e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Fern , 15 5 F .3d13 18 , 13 25 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). A def

en da nt ’s kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry , un co nd it io na l p le a o f gu il ty w ai ve s al l n on -juri sd ic ti on al de fect s i n the pro ceed in gs , bu t i t d oe s n otwaiv e juri sd ic ti on al de fect s. Uni te d Sta tes v. To men y , 14 4 F .3d74 9, 7 51 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). A clai m

is juri sd ic ti on al if i t ca n b e res ol ve d b y ex am in in g t he face of t he in di ctm en t o r th e rec or d a t the ti m e o f th e p le a wit ho utrequi rin g fu rth er pr oc eed in gs . Id. W e h av e h el d tha t an in di ctm en t’s fa il ur e to ch arg e anoff en se is a juri sd ic ti on al de fectth atis no t wai ve d b y a gu il ty ple a. Id. Co ng res s p ro vi de d th e d is tri ctco urts with ju ris di ct io n, “ ex cl us iv e to th e co urts of t he Sta te s,” o f “ al l of fen se s ag ai ns t the laws of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 32 31 . An ef fectonin te rs ta te co m

m erce is requi redforCo ng res s t o h av e au th or it y un de r th e Co m

m erce Claus e to forbi d c ert ai n c on du ct . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo pe z , 51 4 U.S. 5 49 , 56 2, 1 15 S. Ct. 1 62 4, 1 63 1 (1 99 5) (di sc us si ng th e n eedforex pr es s juri sd ic ti on al ele m en ts infed eral st atut es ). Howev er, a fa il ur e o f al le ga ti on or 7 Case: 11-14199 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 7 of 9pr oo f onanin te rs ta te -co m m erce ele m en t d oe s n otde pr iv e th e d is tri ctco urt o f juri sd ic ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. Te rn us , 59 8 F .3d12 51 , 12 54 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). In Ternu s , th e ap pe ll an t ch al le ng edhi s p le a o n t he ba si s tha t the for ei gn -co m m erce el em en t i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 23 14 was juris di ct io na l, an d t ha t the di st ric t co urt l ack ed juri sd ic ti on ov er h is cas e b ecau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce as to th e fo rei gn -co m

m erce ele m en t. Id. W e h el d t ha t Tern us ’s arg um en t was a su ffi ci en cy -o f-the -ev id en ce ar gu m en t, n ota juri sd ic ti on al arg um en t, an d, thu s, was waiv edwith h is gu il ty ple a. Id. ; se e a ls o Al ik ha ni v. Uni te d Sta tes , 20 0 F .3d 73 2, 7 34 -3 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (ho ld in g, i n t he co nt ex t o f a co ra m no bis pro ceed in g, th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adjuri sd ic ti on to en te r a jud gm en t upo n t he m eri ts wher e an in di ctm en t al le ge d v io la ti on s o f th e la ws o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, ev enwher e th e in di ctm en t fa il edto all eg e o r pr ov e anin te rs ta te -co m m erce ele m en t). The di stric t co urt h adjuri sd ic ti on ov er the ch arg es inCo un ts 2 an d 3 be cau se Co un t 2 cle arl y

ch arg eda fed eral off

en se , nam el y , a vi ol at io n o f §§ 19 51 an d 2 . As su ch , Torre s’s ar gu m en t tha t Co un t 3 is fat al ly defi ci en t fo r ci ti ng Co un t 2 as apre di cat e o ffen se is witho utm eri t fo r th e sa m e rea so n. To th e ex te nt th atTorr es arg ue s tha t i ns uf fic ie ntev id en ce s up po rts th e in te rs ta te -co m m erce el em en t o f Co un t 2 , th atis no n- juri sd ic ti on al an d wai ve d b y hi s g ui lt y

pl ea. III. 8 Case: 11-14199 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 8 of 9Altho ug h n otrai se d b y eit he r pa rty, we m ay su a s po nt e rai se th e is su e o f cl eri cal erro rs inth e jud gm en t an d re m an d wi th in st ru ct io ns th atth e d is tri ctco urt co rrec t the erro rs . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. C amp os -Dia z , 47 2 F .3d12 78 , 12 80 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (rem an di ng with d ire ct io ns to th e d is tri ctco urt t o c orrectth e cl eri cal erro r whe re the jud gm en t s ta te d a n i nc orrectterm of i m pr is on m en t). Re m an d fo r co rrec ti on of t he jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te “ on ly if th e err on eo us en try of the jud gm en t [i s] con si de reda cl eri cal erro r, an d t he co rrec ti onof t he jud gm en t wo ul d no t p reju di ce the de fen da ntinan y rev ers ib le way .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Di az , 19 0 F.3 d 1 24 7, 1 25 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Co un t 1 of the in di ctm en t ch arg edTorr es with avi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 1( a), an d To rres pl edgu il ty to tha t ch arg e. Howev er, the writ te n ju dg m en t was reco rd edfora vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 51 (a) an d 2. Th ere i s a s cri ve ne r’s erro r as to Co un t 1 be cau se th e in di ctm en t d idno t ch arg e a v io la ti on of § 2 fo r th is Co un t. 1 Afte r rev ie w of t he reco rdan d c aref ul co ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ app el la te br ie fs , we affi rm

Torr es ’s con vi ct io ns an d re m an d fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f co rrec ti ng a cl eri cal erro r in th e wri tt enjud gm en t. AFFIR MED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART. The written judgment a

nd the indictment are consistent as to Counts 2 and 3. 1 9 Case: 11-14199 Date Filed: 01/03/2013 Page: 9 of 9