FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 21 , 2006 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. 05- 14947 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 8 9 - CR- T- 1 7 - TBM 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 R E G I N A L D A L V I N M I L I A N , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 21, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R e g in a ld M ilia n p le d g u ilty to m a k in g af a ls e w r itte n s ta te m e n t, in2

c o n n e c tio n w ith a n a tte m p t to a c q u ir e af ir e a rm f r o m af e d e r a lly lic e n s e d d e a le r , in v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (a)(6 ). M i l i an w as sen t en ced t o 7 0 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm ent . M i l i an appeal s, ar gu i ng thathi s gui l ty pl eai s i nv al i d. A ft er r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. D ur i ng M i l i a n’ s c ha nge - of - pl e ahe a r i ng, the gove rnm e ntpr of f e r e d the fol l ow i ng fa ctual basi s f or M i l i an’ s pl ea : O n oraboutM a y 13th, 2003, i n H i l l s bor ough C ounty , i n the M i dd l e D i stri ctof F l ori da, the D ef endant , R egi nal d M i l i an, paw ned a n Arm a l i t e AR - 1 0 . 3 0 8 c a l i b e rr i f l e a tth e Un i v e r s i ty Gu n a n d P a wn S h o p . . . . O n J u ly 3 r d , 2 0 0 3 , th e D e f e n d a n t r e tu rn e d to th e U n iv e r s ity G un a nd P a w n S hop a nd a tt e m pt e d t o r e a c qui r e the A rm a l i t e A R - 10

. 30 8 cal i ber r i fl e a nd fa l se l y a nsw er ed no t o the qu es t i on of w hether he ha d e ve rbe e n c onvi c t e d of af e l ony of f e ns e on A T F F r om 4473, the F i r e a rm s T r a ns a c t i on R e c or d. T h is r e s p o n s e w a s u n tru e , a s th e D e f e n d a n t h a d b e e n p r e v io u s ly c onvi c t e d of

r obbe ry . . . a nd s e xua l a s s a ul ton ac hi l d by one i n a p o s itio n o f

tru s t . . . . M i l i a n a gr e e d tha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s r e c i t a t i on of the f a c t s w a s a c c ur a t e . T he di stri ctcourtsubsequent l y a cc ept ed M i l i an’ s gui l ty pl ea . O n ap p e a l, M ilia n a r g u e s f o rth e f ir s t tim e th a t, b e c a u s e th e g o v e rn m e n t d id note s t abl i s h on the r e c or d tha tthe pa w n s hop w he r e he a tt e m pt e d t o a c qui r e the f i r e a rm w a s af

e de r a l l y l i c e ns e d de a l e r , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note s t abl i s h a s u f f ic ie n t f a c tu a l b a s is f

o rh is g u ilty p le a . W h e r e , a s h e r e , ad e f e n d a n t f a ils to obj ec tt o a R ul e 11 v i ol at i on i n the di stri ctcourt , w e r evi ew for pl ai n err or. U ni t edWe rejec t Mili an’s a rgument that this Court shoul d apply the de novo standa

rd of review 1 a pp lic a bleto R ule11 vo luntarine ss challeng e s. Mil ian’ s a pp e al do e s n ot a ssert

a vo luntarine ss challeng e. 3 S t a t e s v . Mo n r o e , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 4 9 ( 1 1 C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . Un d e rp l a i n e rr o rr e v i e w, th 1 th e r e m u s t b e ( 1 ) a n e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I d . “I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, a n ap p e lla te c o u r t m a y th e n e x e r c is e its di s c r e t i on t o not i c e af

or f e i t e d e rr or , butonl y i f

( 4) the e rr or‘ s e r i ous l y a f f e c t [ s ] the f a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .’” I d . “F u r th e r , in the R ul e 11 con t ext , the re vi ew i ng courtm ayconsul tthe w ho l e r ec ord w hen c ons i de r i ng the e f

f e c tof a ny e rr oron s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a rks o m itte d ) . T h e d e f

e n d a n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t a n e rr o ra f f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U n ite d S ta te s v . B e ja r a n o , 2 4 9 F .3 d 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 0 6 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . th I n o r d e rto p r o v e th a t ad is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d p la in e rr o ru n d e rR u le 1 1 , a de f e nda ntm us ts how a“ r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf orthe e rr or , he w oul d not ha ve e nt e r e d the pl e a . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D om i ngue z B e ni t e z , 542 U . S . 74, 83, 124 S . C t . 23 33 , 23 40 (200 4). R ul e 11( b) ( 3) r e qui r e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t , be f or e e nt e r i ng j udgm e nton a g u i l ty p l e a , “ d e t e rmi n e th a tth e r e i s af a c tu a l b a s i s f

o rth e p l e a . ” Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 11( b) ( 3) . T hi s r e qui r e m e nts e rve s the purpos e of pr ot e c t i ng “ ade f

e nda ntw ho m is ta k e n ly b e lie v e s th a t h is c o n d u c t c o n s titu te s th e c r im in a l o f f e n s e to w h ic h h e is4

pl e a di ng. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F ry e , 402 F . 3d 1123, 1128 ( 11 C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 125 th S . C t . 2986 ( 2005) . “ T he s t a nda r d f ore va l ua t i ng c ha l l e nge s t o the f a c tua l ba s i s f

or ag u ilty p le ais w h e th e rth e tr ia l c o u r t w a s p r e s e n te d w ith e v id e n c e f r o m w h ic h it c oul d r e a s onabl y f

i nd tha tthe de f

e nda ntw a s gui l ty . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a rks o m itte d ) .

“ T o s us t a i n ac onvi c t i on unde r§ 922( a ) ( 6) , the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubttha t : ( 1) the de f e nda ntknow i ngl y m a de ; ( 2) af a l s e or f i c t i t i ous w r i tt e n s t a t e m e nti n c onne c t i on w i th the pur c ha s e of f i r e a rm s ; ( 3) i n t en d ed t o d ecei v e o r l i k el y t o d ecei v e a l i cen sed fi rearm s d eal er; (4 ) an d th e fal se s t a t e m e ntw a s af

a c tm a t e r i a l t o the l a w f

ul ne s s of the s a l e ordi s pos i t i on of the fi re arm . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. O rt i z, 31 8 F . 3d 10 30 , 10 36 (11 C i r. 20 03 ). th H er e, the go vernm entpres ent ed suff i ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch the di stri ct courtre as on abl y c ou l d h ave det erm i ned thatM i l i an w as gu i l ty of the charged of f e ns e . M i l i a n a dm i tt e d a tthe pl e ac ol l oquy tha t , w he n he w e ntt o r e a c qui r e the f ir e a rm a t th e U n iv e r s ity G u n a n d P a w n S h o p , h e f ille d o u t a n A T F F o rm 4 4 7 3 . T hi s f ac tw as suff

i ci entfor the di stri ctcourtt o h ave r ea sonabl y c on cl ud ed that U ni vers i ty G un and P aw n S ho p w as fe dera l l y l i ce nsed, as fe dera l l y l i ce nsed f ir e a rm s d e a le r s u s e th is f o rm . M or e ove r , e ve n a s s um i ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d e rr orby5

a c c e p tin g M ilia n ’s g u ilty p le a , M ilia n h a s n o t c a rr ie d h is b u r d e n to s h o w p r e ju d ic e . M ilia n h a s n o t a lle g e d , m u c h le s s p r o v e n , th a t, h a d th e g o v e rn m e n t in c lu d e d in its pr of f e rtha tU ni ve r s i ty G un a nd P a w n S hop w a s f e de r a l l y l i c e ns e d, he w oul d not have pl ed gu i l ty. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm M i l i an’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . AF F I RME D.